[FoRK] When Wealth Disappears

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Tue Oct 8 04:37:46 PDT 2013


(doesn't mention the actual core problem: exponential growth
kinetics reaching fundamental limits "unexpectedly")

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/opinion/when-wealth-disappears.html?ref=opinion&_r=0&pagewanted=print

When Wealth Disappears

By STEPHEN D. KING

LONDON — AS bad as things in Washington are — the federal government shutdown
since Tuesday, the slim but real potential for a debt default, a political
system that seems increasingly ungovernable — they are going to get much
worse, for the United States and other advanced economies, in the years
ahead.

>From the end of World War II to the brief interlude of prosperity after the
cold war, politicians could console themselves with the thought that rapid
economic growth would eventually rescue them from short-term fiscal
transgressions. The miracle of rising living standards encouraged rich
countries increasingly to live beyond their means, happy in the belief that
healthy returns on their real estate and investment portfolios would let them
pay off debts, educate their children and pay for their medical care and
retirement. This was, it seemed, the postwar generations’ collective destiny.

But the numbers no longer add up. Even before the Great Recession, rich
countries were seeing their tax revenues weaken, social expenditures rise,
government debts accumulate and creditors fret thanks to lower economic
growth rates.

We are reaching end times for Western affluence. Between 2000 and 2007, ahead
of the Great Recession, the United States economy grew at a meager average of
about 2.4 percent a year — a full percentage point below the 3.4 percent
average of the 1980s and 1990s. From 2007 to 2012, annual growth amounted to
just 0.8 percent. In Europe, as is well known, the situation is even worse.
Both sides of the North Atlantic have already succumbed to a Japan-style
“lost decade.”

Surely this is only an extended cyclical dip, some policy makers say.
Champions of stimulus assert that another huge round of public spending or
monetary easing — maybe even a commitment to higher inflation and government
borrowing — will jump-start the engine. Proponents of austerity argue that
only indiscriminate deficit reduction, accompanied by reforming entitlement
programs and slashing regulations, will unleash the “animal spirits”
necessary for a private-sector renaissance.

Both sides are wrong. It’s now abundantly clear that forecasters have been
too optimistic, boldly projecting rates of growth that have failed to
transpire.

The White House and Congress, unable to reach agreement in the face of a
fiscal black hole, have turned over the economic repair job to the Federal
Reserve, which has bought trillions of dollars in securities to keep interest
rates low. That has propped up the stock market but left many working
Americans no better off. Growth remains lackluster.

The end of the golden age cannot be explained by some technological reversal.
>From iPad apps to shale gas, technology continues to advance. The underlying
reason for the stagnation is that a half-century of remarkable one-off
developments in the industrialized world will not be repeated.

First was the unleashing of global trade, after a period of protectionism and
isolationism between the world wars, enabling manufacturing to take off
across Western Europe, North America and East Asia. A boom that great is
unlikely to be repeated in advanced economies.

Second, financial innovations that first appeared in the 1920s, notably
consumer credit, spread in the postwar decades. Post-crisis, the pace of such
borrowing is muted, and likely to stay that way.

Third, social safety nets became widespread, reducing the need for households
to save for unforeseen emergencies. Those nets are fraying now, meaning that
consumers will have to save more for ever longer periods of retirement.

Fourth, reduced discrimination flooded the labor market with the pent-up
human capital of women. Women now make up a majority of the American labor
force; that proportion can rise only a little bit more, if at all.

Finally, the quality of education improved: in 1950, only 15 percent of
American men and 4 percent of American women between ages 20 and 24 were
enrolled in college. The proportions for both sexes are now over 30 percent,
but with graduates no longer guaranteed substantial wage increases, the costs
of education may come to outweigh the benefits.

These five factors induced, if not complacency, an assumption that economies
could expand forever.

Adam Smith discerned this back in 1776 in his “Wealth of Nations”: “It is in
the progressive state, while the society is advancing to the further
acquisition, rather than when it has acquired its full complement of riches,
that the condition of the labouring poor, of the great body of the people,
seems to be the happiest and the most comfortable. It is hard in the
stationary, and miserable in the declining state.”

The decades before the French Revolution saw an extraordinary increase in
living standards (alongside a huge increase in government debt). But in the
late 1780s, bad weather led to failed harvests and much higher food prices.
Rising expectations could no longer be met. We all know what happened next.

When the money runs out, a rising state, which Smith described as “cheerful,”
gives way to a declining, “melancholy” one: promises can no longer be met,
mistrust spreads and markets malfunction. Today, that’s particularly true for
societies where income inequality is high and where the current generation
has, in effect, borrowed from future ones.

In the face of stagnation, reform is essential. The euro zone is unlikely to
survive without the creation of a legitimate fiscal and banking union to
match the growing political union. But even if that happens, Southern
Europe’s sky-high debts will be largely indigestible. Will Angela Merkel’s
Germany accept a one-off debt restructuring that would impose losses on
Northern European creditors and taxpayers but preserve the euro zone? The
alternatives — disorderly defaults, higher inflation, a breakup of the common
currency, the dismantling of the postwar political project — seem worse.

In the United States, which ostensibly has the right institutions (if not the
political will) to deal with its economic problems, a potentially explosive
fiscal situation could be resolved through scurrilous means, but only by
threatening global financial and economic instability. Interest rates can be
held lower than the inflation rate, as the Fed has done. Or the government
could devalue the dollar, thereby hitting Asian and Arab creditors. Such
“default by stealth,” however, might threaten a crisis of confidence in the
dollar, wiping away the purchasing-power benefits Americans get from the
dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.

Not knowing who, ultimately, will lose as a consequence of our past excesses
helps explain America’s current strife. This is not an argument for immediate
and painful austerity, which isn’t working in Europe. It is, instead, a plea
for economic honesty, to recognize that promises made during good times can
no longer be easily kept.

That means a higher retirement age, more immigration to increase the
working-age population, less borrowing from abroad, less reliance on monetary
policy that creates unsustainable financial bubbles, a new social compact
that doesn’t cannibalize the young to feed the boomers, a tougher stance
toward banks, a further opening of world trade and, over the medium term, a
commitment to sustained deficit reduction.

In his “Future of an Illusion,” Sigmund Freud argued that the faithful clung
to God’s existence in the absence of evidence because the alternative — an
empty void — was so much worse. Modern beliefs about economic prospects are
not so different. Policy makers simply pray for a strong recovery. They opt
for the illusion because the reality is too bleak to bear. But as the current
fiscal crisis demonstrates, facing the pain will not be easy. And the waking
up from our collective illusions has barely begun.

Stephen D. King, chief economist at HSBC, is the author of “When the Money
Runs Out: The End of Western Affluence.”


More information about the FoRK mailing list