NEW YORK –
Economics has been called the dismal science, and 2023 will vindicate that
moniker. We are at the mercy of two cataclysms that are simply beyond our
control. The first is the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to threaten us
with new, more deadly, contagious, or vaccine-resistant variants. The pandemic
has been managed especially poorly by China, owing mainly to its failure to
inoculate its citizens with more effective (Western-made) mRNA vaccines.
The second
cataclysm is Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine. The conflict shows no end
in sight, and could escalate or produce even greater spillover effects. Either
way, more disturbances to energy and food prices are all but assured. And, as
if these problems weren’t vexing enough, there is ample reason to worry that
the response from policymakers will make a bad situation worse.
Most importantly,
the US Federal Reserve may raise interest rates too far and too fast. Today’s
inflation is largely driven by supply
shortages, some of which are already in the process of being
resolved. Raising interest rates therefore might be counterproductive. It will
not produce more food, oil, or gas, but it will make it more difficult to
mobilize investments that would help alleviate the supply shortages.
Monetary tightening
also could lead to a global slowdown. In fact, that outcome is highly
anticipated, and some commentators, having convinced themselves that combating
inflation requires economic pain, have been effectively cheering on the
recession. The quicker and deeper, the better, they argue. They seem not to
have considered that the cure may be worse than the disease.
The global tremors
from the Fed’s tightening could already be felt heading into winter. The United
States is engaged in a twenty-first-century beggar-thy-neighbor policy. While a
stronger dollar tempers inflation
in the US, it does so by weakening other currencies and increasing inflation
elsewhere. To mitigate these foreign-exchange effects, even countries with weak
economies are being forced to
raise interest rates, which is weakening their economies further.
Higher interest
rates, depreciated currencies, and a global slowdown have already pushed dozens of
countries to the edge of default. Higher interest rates and
energy prices will also push many firms toward bankruptcy, too. There have
already been some dramatic examples of this, as with the now-nationalized German
utility Uniper.
And even if
companies don’t seek bankruptcy protection, both firms and households will feel
the stress of tighter financial and credit conditions. Not surprisingly, 14
years of ultra-low interest rates have left many countries,
firms, and households overindebted.
The past year’s
massive changes in interest rates and exchange rates imply multiple hidden
risks – as demonstrated by the near-collapse of
British pension funds in late September and early October. Mismatches of
maturities and exchange rates are a hallmark of under-regulated economies, and
they have become even more prevalent with the growth of non-transparent
derivatives.
These economic
travails will, of course, fall hardest on the most vulnerable countries,
providing even more fertile ground for populist demagogues to sow the seeds of
resentment and discontent. There was a global sigh of relief when Luiz Inácio Lula
da Silva defeated Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil’s presidential
election. But let us not forget that Bolsonaro got almost 50% of the votes and
still controls Brazil’s
Congress.
Across every
dimension, including the economy, the greatest threat to well-being today is
political. Over
half the world’s population lives under authoritarian regimes.
Even in the US, one of the two major parties has become a personality cult that
increasingly rejects democracy and
continues to lie about the outcome of the 2020 election. Its modus operandi is
to attack the press, science, and institutions of higher learning, while
pumping as much mis- and disinformation into the culture as it can.
The aim, apparently, is to roll back much of the progress of the past 250 years. Gone is the optimism that prevailed at the end of the Cold War, when Francis Fukuyam could herald “the end of history,” by which he meant the disappearance of any serious challenger to the liberal-democratic model.
To be sure, there
is still a positive agenda that could forestall a descent into atavism and
despair. But in many countries, political polarization and gridlock have pushed
such an agenda out of reach. With better-functioning political systems, we could have moved
much faster to increase production and supply, mitigating the inflationary
pressures our economies now confront.
After a
half-century of telling farmers not to produce as much as
they could, both Europe and the US could have told them to produce more. The US
could have provided childcare – so that more women could enter the labor force,
alleviating the alleged labor shortages – and Europe could have moved more
quickly to reform its energy markets and prevent a spike in electricity prices.
Countries around
the world could have levied windfall-profit taxes in ways that might actually
have encouraged investment and tempered prices, using the proceeds to protect
the vulnerable and to make public investments in economic resilience. As an
international community, we could have adopted the COVID-19 intellectual-property
waiver, thereby reducing the magnitude of vaccine apartheid and the
resentment that it fuels, as well as mitigating the risk of dangerous new
mutations.
All told, an
optimist would say that our glass is about one-eighth full. A select few
countries have made some progress on this agenda, and for that we should be
grateful. But almost 80 years after Friedrich von Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom, we are still living
with the legacy of the extremist policies that he and Milton Friedman pushed
into the mainstream. Those ideas have put us on a truly dangerous course: the
road to a twenty-first-century version of fascism.
-Project
Syndicate
Joseph E.
Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and University Professor at Columbia
University, is a former chief economist of the World Bank (1997-2000), chair of
the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and co-chair of the High-Level
Commission on Carbon Prices. He is a member of the Independent Commission
for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation and was lead author of
the 1995 IPCC Climate Assessment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.