Recession

By Roger E. A Farmer

“Before I draw nearer to that stone to which you point,” said Scrooge, “answer me one question. Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only?”

Economic policy is in a muddle. Academic voices are flooding the blogosphere and the intelligent policymaker can be forgiven for being unclear as to which side to listen to. On one end of the spectrum are classical revisionists who blame government for distorting market outcomes. On the other are Keynesians who think that fiscal deficits will rescue capitalism from its excesses. Both are partly wrong. Both are partly right.

The UK has followed the US and Japan into “unconventional monetary policy”. Meanwhile, Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England warns the UK government of the dangers of further discretionary fiscal stimulus. Yet what are the implications of the policies followed by central banks? Are these not the big threat to monetary stability?

The following is Martin Wolf’s testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the US, March 25, 2009

We are experiencing the most dangerous financial and economic crisis since the 1930s. But it is also a crisis for foreign policy: a deep recession will shake political stability a across the globe; and it threatens the long-standing US goal of an open and dynamic global economy. Perhaps most important, the US is currently seen as the source of the problem rather than the solution.

This crisis is, therefore, a devastating blow to US credibility and legitimacy across the world. If the US cannot manage free-market capitalism, who can? If free-market capitalism can bring such damage, why adopt it? If openness to the world economy brings such dangers, why risk it? As the shock turns to anger, not just in the US, but across the world, these questions are being asked. If the US wishes to obtain the right answers, it must address the crisis at home, and do what it can to rescue innocent victims abroad. This is not a matter of charity. It is a matter of enlightened self-interest.

Ferguson illustration

The summit of the Group of 20 leading high-income and emerging countries in London on Thursday seems set to achieve progress. But achievement must be measured not just against past performances, but against “the fierce urgency of now”. Unfortunately, it will come up short.

Pinn illustration

I am becoming ever more worried. I never expected much from the Europeans or the Japanese. But I did expect the US, under a popular new president, to be more decisive than it has been. Instead, the Congress is indulging in a populist frenzy; and the administration is hoping for the best.

Can we afford this crisis? Will governments destroy their solvency, as they use their balance sheets to rescue over-indebted private sectors?

The summit of the Group of 20 leading advanced and emerging countries in London on April 2 2009 will fail. Its members are refusing to meet what Lawrence Summers, senior economic adviser to the US president Barack Obama, calls “the universal demand agenda”. Conventional wisdom is the enemy. Alas, it is winning.

By Ricardo Caballero

We are running out of time. There is no end in sight unless much political capital is put at risk now. We have a superb team of economists and technicians, but their voices seem to have been lost.

I recall Lawrence Summers, chief White House economic adviser, rightly claiming that if markets over-react, the government has to over-react even more. US Treasury secretary Tim Geithner, even in his much criticised first announcement, sounded like a man of the right principles: We must stabilise the financial system, regardless of cost, was the message delivered with clenched teeth.

Another ideological god has failed. The assumptions that ruled policy and politics over three decades suddenly look as outdated as revolutionary socialism.

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” Thus quipped Ronald Reagan, hero of US conservatism. The remark seems ancient history now that governments are pouring trillions of dollars, euros and pounds into financial systems.

The UK government looks increasingly like a python that has swallowed a hippopotamus. In acting as insurer of last resort to the British-based banking system, it is taking on huge risks on behalf of taxpayers. If this turned out to be a global depression, with huge losses for British-based banks, fiscal solvency might even come into question. Can this make sense? I doubt it.

Economists' Forum

Debating economics

About this blog Blog guide
Read posts on economics from guest contributors to the FT and share your views. Martin Wolf, the FT's chief economics commentator, often joins the debate.


To comment, please register for free with FT.com and read our policy on submitting comments.

All posts are published in UK time.

Contact martin.wolf@ft.com about the Economists' Forum.

See the full list of FT blogs.

Archive

« AprMay 2012
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031