adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Economy

Is the world economy going back to the 1970s? – The Economist

Published

 on


IT IS NEARLY half a century since the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries imposed an oil embargo on America, turning a modest inflation problem into a protracted bout of soaring prices and economic misery. But the stagflation of the 1970s is back on economists’ minds today, as they confront strengthening inflation and disappointing economic activity. The voices warning of unsettling echoes with the past are influential ones, including Larry Summers and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Mohamed El-Erian of Cambridge University and previously of PIMCO, a bond-fund manager.

Stagflation is a particularly thorny problem because it combines two ills—high inflation and weak growth—that do not normally go together. So far this year economic growth across much of the world has been robust and unemployment rates, though generally still above pre-pandemic levels, have fallen. But the recovery seems to be losing momentum, fuelling fears of stagnation. Covid-19 has led to factory closures in much of South-East Asia, hitting industrial production. Consumer sentiment in America is sputtering. Meanwhile, after a decade of sluggishness, price pressures are growing (see chart). Inflation has risen above central-bank targets across most of the world, and exceeds 3% in Britain and the euro area and 5% in America.

The economic picture is not as dire as the situation during parts of the 1970s, when inflation in the rich world ran to double digits. But what worries stagflationists is less the precise figures than the fact that an array of forces threatens to keep inflation high even as growth slows—and that these look eerily similar to the factors behind the stagflation of the 1970s.

300x250x1

One parallel is that the world economy is once again weathering energy- and food-price shocks. Global food prices have risen by roughly a third over the past year. Gas and coal prices have hit record levels in Asia and Europe. Stocks of both fuels are disconcertingly low in big economies such as China and India; power cuts, already a problem in China, may spread. Rising energy costs will exert more upward pressure on inflation and further darken the economic mood worldwide.

Other costs are rising too: shipping rates have soared, because of a shift in consumer spending towards goods and covid-related backlogs at ports. Workers are enjoying greater bargaining power this year, as firms facing surging demand struggle to attract sufficient labour. Unions in Germany, for instance, are demanding higher pay; some are even going on strike.

Stagflationists see another similarity with the past in the current economic-policy environment. They fret that macroeconomic thinking has regressed, creating an opening for sustained inflation. In the 1960s and 1970s governments and central banks tolerated rising inflation as they prioritised low unemployment over stable prices. But the bruising experience of stagflation helped shift intellectual thinking, producing a generation of central bankers determined to keep inflation in check. Then, after the global financial crisis and a period of deficient demand, this single-minded focus gave way to greater concern about unemployment. Low interest rates weakened governments’ fiscal discipline, and enabled vast amounts of stimulus during 2020.

Now as in the 1970s, the worriers warn, governments and central banks may be tempted to solve supply-side problems by running the economy even hotter, yielding high inflation and disappointing growth.

These parallels aside, however, the 1970s provide little guidance for those seeking to understand current troubles. To see this, consider the areas where the historical comparison does not hold. Energy and food-price shocks worry economists because they could become baked into wage bargains and inflation expectations, causing spiralling price rises. Yet the institutions that could underpin a new, long-lived era of labour strength remain weak, for the most part. In 1970 about 38% of workers across the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, were covered by union wage bargains. By 2019, that figure had declined to 16%, the lowest on record.

Cost-of-living adjustments (COLA), which automatically translate increases in inflation into higher pay, were a common feature of wage contracts in the 1970s. But the practice has declined dramatically since. In 1976 more than 60% of American union workers were covered by collective-bargaining contracts with COLA provisions; by 1995, the share was down to 22%. A paper published in 2020 by Anna Stansbury of Harvard and Mr Summers argued that a secular decline in bargaining power is the “major structural change” explaining key features of recent macroeconomic performance, including low inflation, notwithstanding the decline in unemployment rates over time. As dramatic as the pandemic has been, it seems unlikely that such a big shift has reversed so quickly.

Moreover, stagflation in the 1970s was exacerbated by a sharp decline in productivity growth across rich economies. In the decades after the second world war, governments’ commitment to maintaining demand was accommodated by rocketing growth in productive capacity (the French called the period “les Trente Glorieuses”). But by the early 1970s the long productivity boom had run out of steam. The habit of stoking demand failed to help expand productive potential, and pushed up prices instead. What followed was a long period of disappointing productivity growth. Since the worst of the pandemic, however, it has strengthened: output per hour worked in America grew at about 2% over the year to June, roughly double the average rate of the 2010s. Booming capital expenditure could well mean such gains are sustained.

Another important break with the 1970s is that central banks have neither forgotten how to rein in inflation nor lost their commitment to price stability. In the 1970s even some central bankers doubted their power to curb wage and price increases. Arthur Burns, then the chairman of the Federal Reserve, reckoned that “monetary policy could do very little to arrest an inflation that rested so heavily on wage-cost pressures”. Research by Christina and David Romer of the University of California at Berkeley suggests that Mr Burns’s view was a common one at the time. But the end of the era of high inflation demonstrated that central banks could rein in such inflation, and this knowledge has not been lost. Last month Jerome Powell, the Fed’s current chairman, declared that, if “sustained higher inflation were to become a serious concern, we would certainly respond and use our tools to assure that inflation runs at levels that are consistent with our longer-run goal of 2%.”

The new fiscal orthodoxy likewise has its limits. Budget deficits around the world are forecast to shrink dramatically from this year to next. In America moderate Democrats’ worries about excessive spending may mean that President Joe Biden’s grand investment plans are pared down—or fail to pass at all.

What next for the world economy, then, if it does not face a 1970s re-run? Rocketing energy costs pose a serious risk to the recovery. Soaring prices—or shortages, if governments try to limit rises—will dent households’ and companies’ budgets and hit spending and production. That will come just as governments withdraw stimulus and central banks countenance tighter policy. A demand slowdown could relieve pressure on the supply-constrained parts of the economy: once they have paid their eye-watering electricity bills, for instance, Americans will be less able to afford scarce cars and computers. But it would add a painful coda to nearly two years of covid-19.

Another important respect in which the global economy has changed since the 1970s is in its far greater integration through financial markets and supply chains. Trade as a share of global GDP, for instance, has more than doubled since 1970. The uneven recovery from the pandemic has placed intense stress on some of the ties binding together economies. Panicking governments could hoard resources, further disrupting economies.

Past experience, therefore, is not the clearest lens through which to view the forces buffeting the global economy. The world has changed dramatically since the 1970s, and globalisation has created a vast network of interdependencies. The system now faces a new, unique test.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Climate Change Will Cost Global Economy $38 Trillion Every Year Within 25 Years, Scientists Warn – Forbes

Published

 on


Topline

Climate change is on track to cost the global economy $38 trillion a year in damages within the next 25 years, researchers warned on Wednesday, a baseline that underscores the mounting economic costs of climate change and continued inaction as nations bicker over who will pick up the tab.

Key Facts

Damages from climate change will set the global economy back an estimated $38 trillion a year by 2049, with a likely range of between $19 trillion and $59 trillion, warned a trio of researchers from Potsdam and Berlin in Germany in a peer reviewed study published in the journal Nature.

300x250x1

To obtain the figure, researchers analyzed data on how climate change impacted the economy in more than 1,600 regions around the world over the past 40 years, using this to build a model to project future damages compared to a baseline world economy where there are no damages from human-driven climate change.

The model primarily considers the climate damages stemming from changes in temperature and rainfall, the researchers said, with first author Maximilian Kotz, a researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, noting these can impact numerous areas relevant to economic growth like “agricultural yields, labor productivity or infrastructure.”

Importantly, as the model only factored in data from previous emissions, these costs can be considered something of a floor and the researchers noted the world economy is already “committed to an income reduction of 19% within the next 26 years,” regardless of what society now does to address the climate crisis.

Global costs are likely to rise even further once other costly extremes like weather disasters, storms and wildfires that are exacerbated by climate change are considered, Kotz said.

The researchers said their findings underscore the need for swift and drastic action to mitigate climate change and avoid even higher costs in the future, stressing that a failure to adapt could lead to average global economic losses as high as 60% by 2100.

!function(n) if(!window.cnxps) window.cnxps=,window.cnxps.cmd=[]; var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’); t.display=’none’,t.onload=function() var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’); c.src=’//cd.connatix.com/connatix.playspace.js’,c.setAttribute(‘defer’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c) ,n.head.appendChild(t) (document);

(function()
function createUniqueId()
return ‘xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx’.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) 0,
v = c == ‘x’ ? r : (r & 0x3 );

const randId = createUniqueId();
document.getElementsByClassName(‘fbs-cnx’)[0].setAttribute(‘id’, randId);
document.getElementById(randId).removeAttribute(‘class’);
(new Image()).src = ‘https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=546f0bce-b219-41ac-b691-07d0ec3e3fe1’;
cnxps.cmd.push(function ()
cnxps(
playerId: ‘546f0bce-b219-41ac-b691-07d0ec3e3fe1’,
storyId: ”
).render(randId);
);
)();

How Do The Costs Of Inaction Compare To Taking Action?

Cost is a major sticking point when it comes to concrete action on climate change and money has become a key lever in making climate a “culture war” issue. The costs and logistics involved in transitioning towards a greener, more sustainable economy and moving to net zero are immense and there are significant vested interests such as the fossil fuel industry, which is keen to retain as much of the profitable status quo for as long as possible. The researchers acknowledged the sizable costs of adapting to climate change but said inaction comes with a cost as well. The damages estimated already dwarf the costs associated with the money needed to keep climate change in line with the limits set out in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, the researchers said, referencing the globally agreed upon goalpost set to minimize damage and slash emissions. The $38 trillion estimate for damages is already six times the $6 trillion thought needed to meet that threshold, the researchers said.

Crucial Quote

“We find damages almost everywhere, but countries in the tropics will suffer the most because they are already warmer,” said study author Anders Levermann. The researcher, also of the Potsdam Institute, explained there is a “considerable inequity of climate impacts” around the world and that “further temperature increases will therefore be most harmful” in tropical countries. “The countries least responsible for climate change” are expected to suffer greater losses, Levermann added, and they are “also the ones with the least resources to adapt to its impacts.”

What To Watch For

The fundamental inequality over who is impacted most by climate change and who has benefited most from the polluting practices responsible for the climate crisis—who also have more resources to mitigate future damages—has become one of the most difficult political sticking points when it comes to negotiating global action to reduce emissions. Less affluent countries bearing the brunt of climate change argue wealthy nations like the U.S. and Western Europe have already reaped the benefits from fossil fuels and should pay more to cover the losses and damages poorer countries face, as well as to help them with the costs of adapting to greener sources of energy. Other countries, notably big polluters India and China, stymie negotiations by arguing they should have longer to wean themselves off of fossil fuels as their emissions actually pale in comparison to those of more developed countries when considered in historical context and on a per capita basis. Climate financing is expected to be key to upcoming negotiations at the United Nations’s next climate summit in November. The COP29 summit will be held in Baku, the capital city of oil-rich Azerbaijan.

Further Reading

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Canada's budget 2024 and what it means for the economy – Financial Post

Published

 on


THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

  • Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O’Connor, Gabriel Friedman, Victoria Wells and others.
  • Daily content from Financial Times, the world’s leading global business publication.
  • Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.
  • National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
  • Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.

SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES

300x250x1

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

  • Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O’Connor, Gabriel Friedman, Victoria Wells and others.
  • Daily content from Financial Times, the world’s leading global business publication.
  • Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.
  • National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
  • Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.

REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

  • Access articles from across Canada with one account.
  • Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
  • Enjoy additional articles per month.
  • Get email updates from your favourite authors.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Opinion: Canada's economy has stagnated despite Trudeau government spin – Financial Post

Published

 on


Article content

Growth in gross domestic product (GDP), the total value of all goods and services produced in the economy annually, is one of the most frequently cited indicators of economic performance. To assess Canadian living standards and the current health of the economy, journalists, politicians and analysts often compare Canada’s GDP growth to growth in other countries or in Canada’s past. But GDP is misleading as a measure of living standards when population growth rates vary greatly across countries or over time.

Article content

Federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland recently boasted that Canada had experienced the “strongest economic growth in the G7” in 2022. In this she echoes then-prime minister Stephen Harper, who said in 2015 that Canada’s GDP growth was “head and shoulders above all our G7 partners over the long term.”

300x250x1

Article content

Unfortunately, such statements do more to obscure public understanding of Canada’s economic performance than enlighten it. Lately, our aggregate GDP growth has been driven primarily by population and labour force growth, not productivity improvements. It is not mainly the result of Canadians becoming better at producing goods and services and thus generating more real income for their families. Instead, it is a result of there simply being more people working. That increases the total amount of goods and services produced but doesn’t translate into increased living standards.

Let’s look at the numbers. From 2000 to 2023 Canada’s annual average growth in real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) GDP growth was the second highest in the G7 at 1.8 per cent, just behind the United States at 1.9 per cent. That sounds good — until you adjust for population. Then a completely different story emerges.

Article content

Over the same period, the growth rate of Canada’s real per person GDP (0.7 per cent) was meaningfully worse than the G7 average (1.0 per cent). The gap with the U.S. (1.2 per cent) was even larger. Only Italy performed worse than Canada.

Why the inversion of results from good to bad? Because Canada has had by far the fastest population growth rate in the G7, an average of 1.1 per cent per year — more than twice the 0.5 per cent experienced in the G7 as a whole. In aggregate, Canada’s population increased by 29.8 per cent during this period, compared to just 11.5 per cent in the entire G7.

Starting in 2016, sharply higher rates of immigration have led to a pronounced increase in Canada’s population growth. This increase has obscured historically weak economic growth per person over the same period. From 2015 to 2023, under the Trudeau government, real per person economic growth averaged just 0.3 per cent. That compares with 0.8 per cent annually under Brian Mulroney, 2.4 per cent under Jean Chrétien and 2.0 per cent under Paul Martin.

Recommended from Editorial

  1. inflation

    Opinion: Taming inflation won’t bring prices back down

  2. Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada Carolyn Rogers, seen here in 2023. “You’ve seen those signs that say, ‘in emergency, break glass.’ Well, it’s time to break the glass,” she said.

    Philip Cross: Bank of Canada is right. Weak productivity is a national crisis

  3. Marc Miller, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, waits to appear before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in Ottawa, on Wednesday, March 20, 2024.

    Terence Corcoran: Immigration is all about freedom

Canada is neither leading the G7 nor doing well in historical terms when it comes to economic growth measures that make simple adjustments for our rapidly growing population. In reality, we’ve become a growth laggard and our living standards have largely stagnated for the better part of a decade.

Ben Eisen, Milagros Palacios and Lawrence Schembri are analysts at the Fraser Institute.

Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the business news you need to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters here.

Share this article in your social network

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending