By Martin Wolf

Oil at $200 a barrel: that was the warning from Goldman Sachs, published last week. The real price is already at an all-time high (see chart). At $200 it would be twice as high as it was in any previous spike. Even so, it would be a mistake to focus in shock only on the short-term jump in prices. The bigger issues are longer term.

Here are three facts about oil: it is a finite resource; it drives the global transport system; and if emerging economies consumed oil as Europeans do, world consumption would jump by 150 per cent. What is happening today is an early warning of this stark reality. It is tempting to blame the prices on speculators and big bad oil companies. The reality is different.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

By Martin Wolf 

Paul Volcker is the giant among contemporary central bankers, both literally and figuratively. He it was who had the moral courage to crush inflation as chairman of the Federal Reserve between 1979 and 1987. When Mr Volcker speaks, people listen. What he had to tell the economic club of New York last month was well worth listening to. His summation, cited above, was so devastating, because so true.

Mr Volcker noted that this crisis is not unique. On the contrary, “today’s financial crisis is the culmination, as I count them, of at least five serious breakdowns of systemic significance in the past 25 years – on the average one every five years. Warning enough that something rather basic is amiss.” Those who do not heed such warnings are fated to suffer something yet worse.

So what is to be done? There is a part of me – quite a large part, in fact – that says: “Forget regulation: it will never work. Apart from normal laws against fraud, let the financial system live and die by the laws of competitive markets. If businesses fail, let them simply go down, with all their shareholders, customers and employees. Meanwhile, we will remind users constantly of the dangers.”

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

By Lawrence Summers

Last week, in this column, I argued that making the case that trade agreements improve economic welfare might no longer be sufficient to maintain political support for economic internationalism in the US and other countries. Instead, I suggested that opposition to trade agreements, and economic internationalism more generally, reflected a growing recognition by workers that what is good for the global economy and its business champions was not necessarily good for them, and that there were reasonable grounds for this belief.

The most important reason for doubting that an increasingly successful, integrated global economy will benefit US workers (and those in other industrial countries) is the weakening of the link between the success of a nation’s workers and the success of both its trading partners and its companies. This phenomenon was first emphasised years ago by Robert Reich, the former US labour secretary. The normal argument is that a more rapidly growing global economy benefits workers and companies in an individual country by expanding the market for exports. This is a valid consideration. But it is also true that the success of other countries, and greater global integration, places more competitive pressure on an individual economy. Workers are likely disproportionately to bear the brunt of this pressure.

Continue reading "A strategy to promote healthy globalisation" »

By Martin Wolf 

Of the two crises disturbing the world economy – financial disarray and soaring food prices – the latter is the more disturbing. In many developing countries, the poorest quartile of consumers spends close to three-quarters of its income on food. Inevitably, high prices threaten unrest at best and mass starvation at worst.

The recent price spikes apply to almost all significant food and feedstuffs (see charts). Yet these jumps are themselves part of a wider range of commodity price rises. Powerful forces are linking prices of energy, industrial raw materials and foodstuffs. Those forces include rapid economic growth in the emerging world, strains on world energy supplies, the weakness of the US dollar and global inflationary pressures.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

By Lawrence Summers

While the financial crisis dominates current discussion on the US economy, questions regarding America’s future approach to globalisation are looming increasingly large.

Since the end of the second world war, American economic policy has supported an integrated global economy, stimulating development in poor countries, particularly in Asia, at unprecedented rates. Yet America’s commitment to internationalist economic policy is ever more in doubt. Even before the significant increases in unemployment likely in the months ahead, the indicators are all disturbing. Presidential candidates attack the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Colombian free trade agreement languishes. There are increasing attacks on foreign investment in the US, not to mention growing support for restrictive immigration policies.

To all of this the conventional wisdom has a well developed response, with four standard elements. First, the sceptic regarding trade deals or other internationalist policies is educated around the many benefits of trade, not just for exporters but also for consumers and the economy more generally. Continue reading "America needs to make a new case for trade" »

By Martin Wolf 

As the latest World Economic Outlook from the International Monetary Fund remarks, “the world economy has entered new and precarious territory”. What are perhaps most remarkable are the contrasts between booming commodity prices and credit-market collapses and between buoyant growth in emerging economies and incipient recession in the US. So where are we? How did we get here? And what should we be doing?

The WEO’s answer to the first question is that the US economy may shrink by 0.7 per cent between the fourth quarter of last year and the fourth quarter of 2008. This is a big shift from the 0.9 per cent increase over that period forecast in the January WEO Update. Moreover, growth is expected to be only 1.6 per cent over the following four quarters. Meanwhile, the eurozone’s growth is expected to fall to just 0.9 per cent between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2008.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

By Martin Wolf 

Nice try; no cigar. That was my reaction to the attempt of the banking community to forestall additional regulation, by recommending “a suite of best practices to be embraced voluntarily”. It was also the reaction of the policymakers meeting in Washington over the weekend. More regulation is on its way. After frightening politicians and policymakers so badly, even the most optimistic banker must realise this. The question is whether the additional regulation will do any good.

In an interim report on “market best practices”, the Institute for International Finance, an association of bankers, offers devastating self-criticism.* Here then are some of the weaknesses it identifies: “deteriorating lending standards by certain originators of credit”; a “decline of underwriting standards”; an “excessive reliance on poorly understood, poorly performing and less than adequate ratings of structured products”; and “difficulties in identifying where exposures reside”. Would you buy a voluntary code from people who describe their own mistakes in this brutal manner? I thought not. There are two powerful additional reasons for not doing so.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

By Martin Wolf 

When a wave of destruction hits, everybody looks for somebody to blame. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, once lauded as the “maestro”, has, to his discomfort, become the scapegoat. But even though I dare to disagree with him on some points, much of the criticism is highly unfair. Mr Greenspan remains the most successful central banker of modern times. More important, blame distracts from the challenge, which is to understand what happened, why it happened and what we should do.

As Mr Greenspan pointed out in his response to his critics in the Financial Times on Monday, the housing bubble was not unique to the US. On the contrary, as the background chapter on housing in the International Monetary Fund’s latest World Economic Outlook shows, US experience was far from exceptional. On the contrary, the biggest apparent overvaluations occurred in Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK.

The chart shows the proportionate increase in house prices between 1997 and 2007 that cannot be explained by the fundamental drivers: affordability (the lagged ratio of house prices to disposable incomes); growth in disposable incomes per head; interest rates (short- and long-term); credit growth; changes in equity prices; and changes in working-age population. Thus, the rises reveal the extent to which a country has experienced what seems to be a bubble. The US is in the middle ranks.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

On March 17, Alan Greenspan wrote an article for the FT entitled “We will never have a perfect model of risk“, in which he argued: “We will never be able to anticipate all discontinuities in financial markets.” He concluded: “It is important, indeed crucial, that any reforms in, and adjustments to, the structure of markets and regulation [do] not inhibit our most reliable and effective safeguards against cumulative economic failure: market flexibility and open competition.”

The article attracted a number of critical responses in this forum. For example, Paul de Grauwe wrote: “Greenspan’s article is a smokescreen to hide his own responsibility in making the financial crisis possible.” (Read all the responses.)

The article below is Mr Greenspan’s reply to those criticisms, written exclusively for the Economists’ Forum:

I am puzzled why the remarkably similar housing bubbles that emerged in more than two dozen countries between 2001 and 2006 are not seen to have a common cause. The dramatic fall in real long term interest rates statistically explains, and is the most likely major cause of, real estate capitalization rates that declined and converged across the globe. By 2006, long term interest rates for all developed and major developing economies declined to single digits, I believe for the first time ever.

Doubtless each individual housing bubble has its own idiosyncratic characteristics and some point to Fed monetary policy complicity in the US bubble. But the US bubble was close to median world experience and the evidence of monetary policy adding to the bubble is statistically very fragile. Paul De Grauwe depends on John Taylor’s counterfactual model simulations to conclude that the low funds rate was the source of the US housing bubble. Taylor (with whom I rarely disagree) and others derive their simulations from model structures that have been consistently unable to anticipate the onset of recessions or financial crises. This suggests important missing variables. Counterfactuals from such flawed structures cannot form the basis for policy.

De Grauwe asserts that “signs of recovery” (I assume he means sustainable recovery) were evident before 2004 and hence the Federal Reserve should have started to tighten earlier. With inflation falling to quite low levels, that was not the way the pre-2004 period was experienced at the time. As late as June 2003, the Fed reported “conditions remained sluggish in most districts.” Moreover, low rates did not trigger “a massive credit . . . expansion.” Both the monetary base and M2 rose less than 5% in the subsequent year, scarcely tinder for a massive credit expansion. In fact, growth in total credit market debt owed by the U.S. financial sector declined from a 13% gain during 2001 to an 8% gain during 2004. Nonfinancial sector growth was less.
Continue reading "Alan Greenspan: A response to my critics" »

By Martin Wolf 

You have enjoyed a debt-financed spending spree. But times are now harder: you find it impossible to roll over your debt; you have to pay much higher interest rates than before; or you find that the value of the assets you pledged as collateral is now less than your loan. What can you do? Provided enough of you are in trouble, you call for help from the fairy government-mother.

Thus, George Magnus of UBS, among the wisest analysts of this crisis, has already observed, with some approval, that the crisis “is spawning an array of well scripted but highly unconventional public policy responses” – that is to say, rescues of various kinds.*

Over-indebted individuals have just three choices: reduce spending below income, sell assets they own to somebody else or, if the worst comes to the worst, default. But one person’s debt is another person’s asset, one person’s expenditure is another person’s income; one person’s sale is another person’s purchase and one person’s default is another person’s loss.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.