adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Economy

“I'm not optimistic about the future of the global economy and I don't expect the next 10 years to be particularly good” – CTech

Published

 on


Prof. Daron Acemoglu of MIT is considered one of the three most important, prominent and quoted economists today – and there is no prize, title or summit that he has not conquered, with the exception of one, the Nobel Prize for Economics, which is likely to be awarded to him in the coming weeks, according to estimates.

It is worth listening to what he has to say because today there is no academic or researcher with a reputation like that of Acemoglu – a Turkish-American of Armenian origin – who is an expert in the main issues of international political economy, including the influence of political and economic institutions on the main macroeconomic variables: growth, economic development and inequality.

Since bursting onto the scene in his early 30s with his book “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development”, Acemoglu has tried and quite succeeded to answer a question that has occupied economists from the beginning of time: What are the factors that explain the existing differences in the wealth of countries.

300x250x1

2 View gallery

פרופ' דארון אסמוגלופרופ' דארון אסמוגלו

Prof. Daron Acemoglu.

(Photo: Augustin Iglesias )

In 2012 he published another book, “Why Nations Fail?”, in which he reached a similar conclusion: political institutions – not culture, natural resources or geography – explain why some countries have become rich while others have remained poor. This is the reason why Acemoglu is considered one of the prominent representatives of institutional economics – a segment in the science of economics that emphasizes the importance of social and political institutions in economic developments. In recent years, he has spent most of his time analyzing the technological changes and the effect of automation on employment and growth, and teaching and raising new generations of economists.

Acemoglu answers the question of whether he now recognizes the beginning of a “new era” with an absolute no. This comes on the back the words of the famous economist Nouriel Roubini, the “prophet of rage” of the global economy, who wrote about two months ago that we are moving from a “great moderation” – a period that began in the 1980s and was characterized by a sharp decrease in macroeconomic volatility – to a “great stagflation”.

“I never believed in the theory of the great moderation. In my eyes, what is called the great moderation was a period of building huge financial risks, including in the global supply chain,” he says. “There were more obvious risks and there were some more hidden from view. What’s more, I’m not optimistic about the future of the global economy and I don’t expect the next ten years to be particularly good.”

What do you mean?

“There are many problems – a crisis in democracy, a crisis in globalization, and a crisis in inequality – and they are of course the result of the current political path we are on. These problems are the result of ongoing trends from the past and they continue to erode the existing institutions. So if you want to call it a ‘new era’’ – you are welcome. But I would not extend it to 2019, nor to 2020. I am of course very disturbed by those dangerous trends, both political and economic, which are becoming even more dangerous now. By the way, I would not count inflation as one of them.”

We will talk about inflation, but from your angle: as one of the prominent economists, does its dramatic jump not constitute an important opportunity to bring about a revision in the powers of one of the most important economic institutions today – the central banks?

“I am divided within myself because the current inflation makes me think about two things that conflict with each other. On the one hand, curbing inflation is important because given the market mechanisms, it is a huge ‘trust breaker’. When inflation is high, the public begins to lose trust in the system, in money and in the market mechanism. For some it’s a conscious and rational process, and for many it’s not. When does it happen? Is it when inflation is 2%? I don’t think so. When it’s 4%? Maybe, but I don’t think so either. If it crosses 10%? Probably yes.”

Acemoglu, who is Turkish and was in Turkey at the time of the interview, emphasizes that “the Turks lived for two decades with almost 100% inflation. The danger is that trust in the system could be destroyed. This is a real threat and it is a much more significant threat to democracy and the fight against populism than it is to the cost of living itself. That is why the anti-inflation fight is essential. On the other hand, I am always suspicious of technocrats who take over something and there is no balancing democratic mechanism.”

According to him, “central banks in democratic regimes are the ultimate example of this. It is clear to all of us that people without knowledge or economic background cannot make decisions, design policies or establish monetary regulation. However, the complete absence of democratic inputs on a critical issue, which is what to do with the money and how much of it should there be – is a problematic thing. Not only because sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it doesn’t – but because sometimes they may serve certain groups at the expense of other groups, without even admitting it or noticing it.”

How do you resolve these issues?

“It’s complex and this complexity receives a lot of attention in these historical moments. I don’t have the answer.”

You mentioned inflation, inequality, financial risks, a crisis in globalization – these are all a proven recipe for the strengthening and rise of “populism”.

“Absolutely. This is one of my biggest concerns. I would only frame the phenomenon under a larger heading: the deterioration of democracy. This is reflected in the deterioration in every parameter that is examined and in every index that indicates the health and robustness of democracy. We are already in a sequence of about 16 years in which the existing democracies are weakening, More countries are abandoning the democratic regime, trust in democratic institutions is declining and it is already at a low level. In addition, political polarization is high, there is a wider place for extreme opinions, and the public’s ability to analyze political facts is lower. Populists, mainly on the right, offer a new ‘guide to the perplexed’ after learning from one another. In addition, inequality has been rising for a long time in the U.S., the UK and Israel, and has reached levels that fuel frustration and dissatisfaction. All these things are warning lights for democracy. That’s why I said earlier that I don’t think inflation is the ultimate challenge now, but that it is another straw. It is not clear which of all the difficulties I mentioned will finally break the camel’s back.”

The populists use this inflation as a political tool for personal gain and for the purpose of crushing trust in many institutions. Benjamin Netanyahu is building his entire election campaign on the cost of living and the temporarily high inflation – even though he was in power for 12 years and under his reign the cost of living skyrocketed.

“Bibi is the founding father of right-wing populism. He, along with Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, began concocting the methods upon which many others were later built, such as Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and even Boris Johnson, to a certain extent. Therefore, I am not at all surprised that’s how he works. It is clear that he will pull the discourse in these directions because it is much easier to sell ‘negative’ than ‘positive’. It is much easier to say ‘I am against’ instead of offering what you are in favor of. It is much more difficult to carry out reforms that mean creating ‘winners and losers’ who tomorrow may oppose you. It is clear that Israel too – similar to the USA and the UK – stands at a critical point where it must strengthen its institutions and decide on the direction of its policy. Not only its foreign policy, but especially its domestic policy, including its economic policy.”

One of the amazing and sad things now is that in preparation for the upcoming elections in Israel there is no real, deep, meaningful economic discourse. There is no ideological debate. Everything is quite hollow, emotional and above all personal.

“This is an extremely disturbing development because one of the strongest impressions I got the last time I was in Israel, and that was not long ago, is that this is a population that is very involved in the discourse and in shaping the policy. And I am talking about a very high level of intervention and participation in the democratic process, even more than in a large number of European countries. I really hope you don’t lose this value within one generation.”

2 View gallery

ראש הממשלה לשעבר בנימין נתניהו מנהיגת הימין בצרפת מארין לה־פן ונשיא ארה"ב לשעבר דונלד טראמפראש הממשלה לשעבר בנימין נתניהו מנהיגת הימין בצרפת מארין לה־פן ונשיא ארה"ב לשעבר דונלד טראמפ

Donald Trump (from right), Marine Le Pen, and Benjamin Netanyahu.

(Photo: Alex Kolomoysky, Reuters, AFP)

The political processes you describe have an effect on the economy. How does the rise of populism affect long-term economic growth for example?

“There is definitely an effect and it is very bad. Limiting inequality creates a kind of prosperity that is more spread over more groups, and this is more possible when the institutions are democratic. All the regimes that emerged from the populist right have been a very bad combination of corruption, inefficiency and inaction. It is very difficult for me to see such regimes bringing any kind of benefit or good news in terms of growth, infrastructure, innovation, education, science. Bolsonaro, the president of Brazil, has set Brazil back environmentally but also institutionally. So did Trump in the USA. Netanyahu in Israel has also caused quite a lot of damage to Israeli institutions as it appears from the outside. And so too with Marine Le Pen, Johnson, and Duterte in the Philippines.”

Another phenomenon that is now accelerating and disturbing is the rapid retreat of globalization. How does this affect long-term economic growth?

“I am an expert in the consequences of technological changes and automation on inequality, and there are three common denominators between these issues and globalization that are relevant to our conversation. First, both globalization and technology were presented as ‘gifts’ to humanity that would free everyone from the cycle of poverty, improve everyone’s standard of living and empower us. We know this is not true. Second, both have been presented as ‘neutral’ phenomena whose trajectory is determined by economic science or other existing knowledge. We know that there was ‘selection’ in the trajectory and there were many alternative promotion trajectories. For example, you may decide that you will indeed use Israeli technology as a tool for monitoring your citizens and you can decide otherwise. In the same way you can decide that globalization does not have to be a tool for prioritizing capital at the expense of labor and employees. The route or type of globalization that happened in the end was one that allowed the international corporations to arbitrage between the tax systems of the countries, and just as importantly, between differences in employment regulation and differences in workers’ rights between different countries.”

According to Esmoglu, the third common element between technology and automation and globalization is that the path chosen for their implementation served the powerful players in the system and fueled inequality, and therefore they also clashed head-on with all the ambitions and expectations they aroused at the beginning. “The developments on these two levels only intensify the current populist momentum. On the other hand, I do not think that there is an inherent characteristic – neither in globalization nor in technology and automation – that necessarily causes inequality. You can choose other paths of automation that benefit the working public to the same extent that you can choose other paths of globalization that produce different risks than those that exist today. The current economic reality was supposed to be an opportunity to ‘do a different globalization’, but I doubt that will happen due to the increase in geopolitical tension, the weakening of democratic institutions and the strengthening of regimes – such as in China and Russia – and their increasing influence in the international arena.”

Related articles:

Speaking of China and Russia, many are already talking about the “Balkanization of the world” – splitting into several geopolitical blocs with separate trade, technology and currency systems. Do you think this is the end of the era of “hyper-globalization”?

“That’s not what bothers me and that’s not the real problem. At the end of the day, the interdependence between us is big enough and our problems are global enough, so that if the world becomes bipolar, tripolar or multipolar – our problems will be shared: the climate problems are shared, technologies will transfer from country to country, so are pandemics, as we have seen in the age of the Coronavirus. What is happening now, and this is a real problem, is that the current situation increases a double risk that works in the same direction: more likelihood of a real military conflict, and we see this in Ukraine and Taiwan. At the same time, a lower effectiveness among the international institutions to coordinate joint activity, to agree and settle conflicts and disagreements. This is the real problem.”

Acemoglu emphasizes in this context that “we must admit that even in their good old days, the international institutions never enjoyed sufficient legitimacy and were not strong enough. Some of those international institutions were excessively lenient towards China, in the negative sense of the word, and some of them were too committed, sometimes in appearance and sometimes in practice, to U.S. interests and were not independent enough. All of this contributes to their current complex and dangerous situation.”

Finally, what are your thoughts about “the great resignation”. Is there really such a phenomenon, or is it a natural and permanent dropout of more and more unskilled workers who remain irrelevant and are forced to leave the labor market?

“Indeed, it’s an important question. This is a time of great confusion on this issue. The data shows a rapid increase in the wages of those unskilled, low-wage workers at the bottom of the income distribution in the U.S.. That’s a really great thing because that hasn’t happened in many, many decades in the U.S.. If that’s the case, it may indicate a combination of increased demand for workers along with employment safety nets that protect those workers who will no longer be completely at the mercy of their employers. It’s no longer ‘Work at McDonald’s for $6 an hour or starve to death’. Therefore, the conclusion is that wages at the bottom can indeed recover and this will be a great inspiration. On the other hand, we have seen how real wages lag behind inflation, so it is already less worth it if wages run but inflation runs faster.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Britain's economy went into recession last year, official figures confirm – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on


Open this photo in gallery:

People walk over London Bridge, in London, on Oct. 25, 2023.SUSANNAH IRELAND/Reuters

Britain’s economy entered a shallow recession last year, official figures confirmed on Thursday, leaving Prime Minister Rishi Sunak with a challenge to reassure voters that the economy is safe with him before an election expected later this year.

Gross domestic product shrank by 0.1 per cent in the third quarter and by 0.3 per cent in the fourth, unchanged from preliminary estimates, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said on Thursday.

The figures will be disappointing for Mr. Sunak, who has been accused by the opposition Labour Party – far ahead in opinion polls – of overseeing “Rishi’s recession.”

300x250x1

“The weak starting point for GDP this year means calendar-year growth in 2024 is likely to be limited to less than 1 per cent,” said Martin Beck, chief economic adviser at EY ITEM Club.

“However, an acceleration in momentum this year remains on the cards.”

Britain’s economy has shown signs of starting 2024 on a stronger footing, with monthly GDP growth of 0.2 per cent in January, and unofficial surveys suggesting growth continued in February and March.

Tax cuts announced by finance minister Jeremy Hunt and expectations of interest-rate cuts are likely to help the economy in 2024.

However, Britain remains one of the slowest countries to recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the end of last year, its economy was just 1 per cent bigger than in late 2019, with only Germany faring worse among Group of Seven nations.

The economy grew just 0.1 per cent in all of 2023, its weakest performance since 2009, excluding the peak-pandemic year of 2020.

GDP per person, which has not grown since early 2022, fell by 0.6 per cent in the fourth quarter and 0.7 per cent across 2023.

Sterling was little changed against the dollar and the euro after the data release.

The Bank of England (BOE) has said inflation is moving toward the point where it can start cutting rates. It expects the economy to grow by just 0.25 per cent this year, although official budget forecasters expect a 0.8-per-cent expansion.

BOE policy maker Jonathan Haskel said in an interview reported in Thursday’s Financial Times that rate cuts were “a long way off,” despite dropping his advocacy of a rise at last week’s meeting.

Thursday’s figures from the ONS also showed 0.7 per cent growth in households’ real disposable income, flat in the previous quarter.

Thomas Pugh, an economist at consulting firm RSM, said the increase could prompt consumers to increase their spending and support the economy.

“Consumer confidence has been improving gradually over the last year … as the impact of rising real wages filters through into people’s pockets, even though consumers remain cautious overall,” Mr. Pugh said.

Britain’s current account deficit totalled £21.18-billion ($36.21-billion) in the fourth quarter, slightly narrower than a forecast of £21.4-billion ($36.6-billion) shortfall in a Reuters poll of economists, and equivalent to 3.1 per cent of GDP, up from 2.7 per cent in the third quarter.

The underlying current account deficit, which strips out volatile trade in precious metals, expanded to 3.9 per cent of GDP.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

How will a shrinking population affect the global economy? – Al Jazeera English

Published

 on


Falling fertility rates could bring about a transformational demographic shift over the next 25 years.

It has been described as a demographic catastrophe.

The Lancet medical journal warns that a majority of countries do not have a high enough fertility rate to sustain their population size by the end of the century.

300x250x1

The rate of the decline is uneven, with some developing nations seeing a baby boom.

The shift could have far-reaching social and economic impacts.

Enormous population growth since the industrial revolution has put enormous pressure on the planet’s limited resources.

So, how does the drop in births affect the economy?

And regulators in the United States and the European Union crack down on tech monopolies.

The gender gap in tech narrows.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

John Ivison: Canada's economy desperately needs shock treatment after this Liberal government – National Post

Published

 on


Lack of business investment is the main culprit. Canadians are digging holes with shovels while our competitors are buying excavators

Get the latest from John Ivison straight to your inbox

Article content

It speaks to the seriousness of the situation that the Bank of Canada is not so much taking the gloves off as slipping lead into them.

Senior deputy governor, Carolyn Rogers, came as close to wading into the political arena as any senior deputy governor of the central bank probably should in her speech in Halifax this week.

Article content

But she was right to sound the alarm about a subject — Canada’s waning productivity — on which the federal government’s performance has been lacklustre at best.

Advertisement 2

Article content

Productivity has fallen in six consecutive quarters and is now on a par with where it was seven years ago.

Lack of business investment is the main culprit.

In essence, Canadians are digging holes with shovels while many of our competitors are buying excavators.

“You’ve seen those signs that say, ‘in emergency, break glass.’ Well, it’s time to break the glass,” Rogers said.

She was explicit that government policy is partly to blame, pointing out that businesses need more certainty to invest with confidence. Government incentives and regulatory approaches that change year to year do not inspire confidence, she said.

Recommended from Editorial

  1. Carolyn Rogers, Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada, holds a press conference at the Bank of Canada in Ottawa on Wednesday, March 6, 2024.

    Canada’s lagging productivity at crisis level, BoC official says

  2. Homes for sale at the Juniper condo development in North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, on Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2022.

    Expected BoC rate cuts luring buyers back into housing market

The government’s most recent contribution to the competitiveness file — Bill C-56, which made a number of competition-related changes — is a case in point. It was aimed at cracking down on “abusive practices” in the grocery industry that no one, including the bank in its own study, has been able to substantiate. Rather than encouraging investment, it added a political actor — the minister of industry — to the market review process. The Business Council of Canada called the move “capricious,” which was Rogers’s point.

Article content

Advertisement 3

Article content

While blatant price-fixing is rare, the lack of investment is a product of the paucity of competition in many sectors, where Canadian companies protected from foreign competition are sitting on fat profit margins and don’t feel compelled to invest to make their operations more efficient. “Competition can make the whole economy more productive,” said Rogers.

The Conservatives now look set to make this an election issue. Ontario MP Ryan Williams has just released a slick 13-minute video that makes clear his party intends to act in this area.

Using the Monopoly board game as a prop, Williams, the party’s critic for pan-Canadian trade and competition, claims that in every sector, monopolies and oligopolies reign supreme, resulting in lower investment, lower productivity, higher prices, worse service, lower wages and more wealth inequality.

(As an aside, it was a marked improvement on last year’s “Justinflation” rap video.)

Williams said that Canadians pay among the highest cell phone prices in the world and that Rogers, Telus and Bell are the priciest carriers, bar none. The claim has some foundation: in a recent Cable.co.uk global league table that compared the average price of one gigabyte, Canada was ranked 216th of 237 countries at US$5.37 (noticeably, the U.S. was ranked even more expensive at US$6).

Advertisement 4

Article content

Williams noted that two airlines control 80 per cent of the market, even though Air Canada was ranked dead last of all North American airlines for timeliness.

He pointed out that six banks control 87 per cent of Canada’s mortgage market, while five grocery stores — Sobeys, Metro, Loblaw, Walmart and Costco — command a similar dominance of the grocery market.

“Competition is dying in Canada,” Williams said. “The federal government has made things worse by over-regulating airlines, banks and telecoms to actually protect monopolies and keep new players out.”

So far, so good.

The Conservatives will “bring back home a capitalist economy” — a market that does not protect monopolies and creates more competition, in the form of Canadian companies that will provide new supply and better prices.

That sounds great. But at the same time, the Conservative formula for fixing things appears to involve more government intervention, not less.

Williams pointed out the Conservatives opposed RBC buying HSBC’s Canadian operations, WestJet buying Sunwing and Rogers buying Shaw. The party would oppose monopolies from buying up the competition, he said.

Advertisement 5

Article content

The real solution is to let the market do its work to bring prices down. But that is a more complicated process than Williams lets on.

Back in 2007, when Research in Motion was Canada’s most valuable company, the Harper government appointed a panel of experts, led by former Nortel chair Lynton “Red” Wilson, to address concerns that the corporate sector was being “hollowed out” by foreign takeovers, following the sale of giants Alcan, Dofasco and Inco.

The “Compete to Win” report that came out in June 2008 found that the number of foreign-owned firms had remained relatively unchanged, but recommended 65 changes to make Canada more competitive.

The Harper government acted on the least-contentious suggestions: lowering corporate taxes, harmonizing sales taxes with a number of provinces and making immigration more responsive to labour markets.

But it did not end up liberalizing the banking, broadcasting, aviation or telecom markets, as the report suggested (ironically, it was a Liberal transport minister, Marc Garneau, who raised foreign ownership levels of air carriers to 49 per cent from 25 per cent in 2018).

Advertisement 6

Article content

The point is, Canada has a competition problem but solving it requires taking on vested interests. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has indicated he is willing to do that, calling corporate lobbyists “utterly useless” and saying he will focus on Canadian workers, not corporate interests.

“My daily obsession will be about what is good for the working-class people in this country,” he said in Vancouver earlier this month.

Even opening up sectors to foreign competition is no guarantee that investors will come. There are no foreign ownership restrictions in the grocery market (in addition to the five supermarkets listed above, there is Amazon-owned Whole Foods). When the Competition Bureau concluded last year that there was a “modest but meaningful” increase in food prices, it recommended Ottawa encourage a foreign-owned player to enter the Canadian market. It was a recommendation adopted by Industry Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne, to no avail thus far.

But it is clear from the Bank’s warning that the Canadian economy requires some shock treatment.

Robert Scrivener, the chairman of Bell and Northern Telecom in the 1970s, called Canada a nation of overprotected underachievers. That is even more true now than it was back then.

It’s time to break the glass.

jivison@criffel.ca

Get even more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.

Article content

Get the latest from John Ivison straight to your inbox

Comments

Join the Conversation

This Week in Flyers

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending