By Martin Wolf

Soaring commodity prices, rising headline inflation and weakening economic growth: for those whose memories stretch back to the 1970s, this combination brings painful memories. It reminds them of the mistakes made by the central banks that accommodated the upsurge in inflationary expectations rather than contained them. Inflation was finally brought back under control in the early 1980s. But the costs of letting it escape were huge. Could we be making the same mistakes again?

In the US, headline consumer price inflation was 4.3 per cent in the year to January. In the eurozone, it was 3.1 per cent in the year to December 2007. In both cases, there was a gap – in the case of the US, a huge gap – between the headline rate and the “core” rate, which strips out volatile prices of energy and food.

If this were a temporary deviation, one would ignore it. But it has been continuing for years, particularly in the US (see chart). A cynical observer might well conclude that the Federal Reserve threw caution to the wind years ago. That is what Arthur Burns, then Fed chairman, did in the early 1970s, under pressure from Richard Nixon, then president. Has that been happening again in recent years? The question is surely a fair one.

Continue reading Martin Wolf’s column here, and read comment from forum members and contributors below.

By Martin Wolf

Last week’s column on the views of New York University’s Nouriel Roubini (February 20) evoked sharply contrasting responses: optimists argued he was ludicrously pessimistic; pessimists insisted he was ridiculously optimistic. I am closer to the optimists: the analysis suggested a highly plausible worst case scenario, not the single most likely outcome.

Those who believe even Prof Roubini’s scenario too optimistic ignore an inconvenient truth: the financial system is a subsidiary of the state. A creditworthy government can and will mount a rescue. That is both the advantage – and the drawback – of contemporary financial capitalism.

In an introductory chapter to the newest edition of the late Charles Kindleberger’s classic work on financial crises, Robert Aliber of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business argues that “the years since the early 1970s are unprecedented in terms of the volatility in the prices of commodities, currencies, real estate and stocks, and the frequency and severity of financial crises”*. We are seeing in the US the latest such crisis. (more…)

“I would tell audiences that we were facing not a bubble but a froth – lots of small, local bubbles that never grew to a scale that could threaten the health of the overall economy.” Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence.

That used to be Mr Greenspan’s view of the US housing bubble. He was wrong, alas. So how bad might this downturn get? To answer this question we should ask a true bear. My favourite one is Nouriel Roubini of New York University’s Stern School of Business, founder of RGE monitor.

Recently, Professor Roubini’s scenarios have been dire enough to make the flesh creep. But his thinking deserves to be taken seriously. He first predicted a US recession in July 2006*. At that time, his view was extremely controversial. It is so no longer. Now he states that there is “a rising probability of a ‘catastrophic’ financial and economic outcome”**. The characteristics of this scenario are, he argues: “A vicious circle where a deep recession makes the financial losses more severe and where, in turn, large and growing financial losses and a financial meltdown make the recession even more severe.” (more…)

By Martin Wolf

At least he made the trains run on time. That was said of Benito Mussolini, Italy’s fascist dictator from 1922 to 1943. Much the same is now said of Vladimir Putin, Russia’s authoritarian president. He may have crushed the fragile shoots of democracy, but he has at least restored the economy, the state and his country’s place in the world.

This view is shared by Mr Putin himself. He stated only last week that: “We have worked to restore the country after the chaos, economic ruin and breakdown of the old system that we saw in the 1990s.” But it suffers from a drawback: it is false, as Michael McFaul and Kathryn Stoner-Weiss of Stanford University argue in a powerful article*.

True, between 1999, the year before Mr Putin became president, and 2007, the Russian economy expanded by 69 per cent. But the economies of 11 of the 15 former republics of the Soviet Union expanded by more than Russia’s. Indeed, only Kyrgyzstan did markedly worse. A number of the former Soviet republics did, it is true, benefit from an oil and gas bonanza. But so, too, did Russia: its oil and gas exports jumped from $76bn in 1999 to $350bn last year. Even so, the Russian economy expanded by less than Ukraine’s.

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

By Martin Wolf

When will the next financial crisis come? We do not know. Yet of one thing we can be sure: unless we learn from this crisis, another one will put the world economy back on to the rocks in the not too distant future.

The FT has published a number of contributions on the lessons: Charles Goodhart of the London School of Economics and Avinash Persaud of Intelligence Capital offered “a proposal for how to avoid the next crash” (January 31); Francisco González of BBVA discussed “What banks can learn from this credit crisis” (February 4); and Daniel Heller of the Swiss National Bank argued for three ways to reform bank bonuses (February 4). The substance of Mr Heller’s argument was similar to a contribution of my own (“Regulators should intervene in bankers’ pay”, January 15), but without the regulatory coercion.

The big question, indeed, is whether lessons must be embedded in regulation. Optimistic opponents of regulation argue that the banks have learnt their lesson and will behave more responsibly in future. Pessimistic opponents fear that legislators might create a Sarbanes- Oxley squared. The Act passed by the US Congress in 2002, after Enron and other scandals, was bad enough, they say. The banks might now suffer something worse.

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

By Kenneth Rogoff

Given the highly vulnerable state of the US and European economies, what would happen to global growth if the Chinese juggernaut also started sputtering? Few investors or policymakers seem to be seriously contemplating this scenario.

China’s remarkable resilience to both the 2001 global recession and the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis has convinced almost everyone that another year of double-digit growth is all but inevitable. In fact, the odds of a significant growth recession in China – at least one year of sub-6 per cent growth – during the next couple of years are 50:50. With Chinese inflation spiking, notable backpedalling on market reforms and falling export demand, 2008 could be particularly challenging.

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

By Martin Wolf

Whatever else it may be, the Federal Reserve is not boring. Indeed, by the standards of other central banks, it is hyperactive. The shock 0.75 percentage point reduction in the Federal Funds rate of interest last week, particularly if followed by the widely expected 0.5 percentage points on Wednesday, is a dramatic example. The Fed is the exemplar of an activist central bank. But US fiscal authorities are not far behind, as the $150bn (just over 1 per cent of gross domestic product) fiscal package going through Congress demonstrates.

So what are the US monetary and fiscal authorities trying to do? Will it work? What are the risks? Should others follow suit? The urgency of these questions was made clear at the annual meetings of the World Economic Forum in Davos last week. The consensus was gloomy. Comfortingly, the Davos consensus is usually wrong. The Fed is certainly trying to prove it so this time.

The answer to the first question is: apply “risk management”. That approach is associated with Alan Greenspan, the former Fed chairman. But it is also central to the thinking of the Fed under Ben Bernanke.

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

By Stephen Cecchetti

Tuesday morning’s sudden interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee came as a shock even to those of us who live and breathe this sort of thing. The 75 basis point reduction to 3.5 per cent in the committee’s target for the overnight interbank lending rate was the largest single day move since the Fed adopted its current procedures in 1982. Not only was the action unprecedented in size, it was taken following a quickly organised conference call during the evening of a national holiday.

The immediacy of the cut has its genesis in both the deterioration of macroeconomic conditions over the week ending last Friday, combined with the equity market collapse, and the possible desire of chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues to change the committee’s modus operandi.

Up until this week, all of the Fed’s actions – both the more and less conventional – have been directed at keeping debt markets working. Starting with Mr Bernanke’s speech on January 10, 2008 it is clear that policymakers felt they had failed to keep the financial crisis from influencing the real economy. With global stock markets in freefall the need for immediate action became apparent. The Fed was planning to cut rates in 10 days anyway so why not bring the action forward to soothe markets and avoid a meltdown? While the inter-meeting action does not signal an emergency, it does confirm the plan for a dramatic easing.

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

By Martin Wolf

“I was gradually coming to believe that the US economy’s greatest strength was its resiliency – its ability to absorb disruptions and recover, often in ways and at a pace you’d never be able to predict, much less dictate.” Alan Greenspan, ‘The Age of Turbulence’.

We all hope that Mr Greenspan proves right about the US economy. The Federal Reserve’s rate cut on Tuesday will succeed if Mr Greenspan’s view is correct. Yet many fear he is wrong. Many, too, blame him for the current mess. So how did the world economy fall into its predicament?

One view is that this crisis is a product of a fundamentally defective financial system. An email I received this week laid out the charge: the crisis, it asserted, is the product of “greedy, immoral, solely self-interested and self-delusional decisions made throughout the 2000s, and earlier, by very real human beings at the very top of the financial food chain”.

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

By Martin Wolf

"You really don’t like bankers, do you?” The question, asked by a former banker I met last week, set me back. “Not at all,” I replied. “Some of my best friends are bankers.” While true, it was not the whole truth. I may like many bankers, but I rather dislike banks. I recognise their necessity, but fear their irresponsibility. Worse, they are irresponsible partly because they know they are necessary.

My attitude to the banking industry is not a prejudice. It is a “postjudice”. My first experience with out-of-control banking was when I watched the irresponsible lending that led to the devastating developing-country debt crises of the 1980s.

The world has witnessed well over 100 significant banking crises over the past three decades. The authorities have even had to rescue important parts of the US financial system – on most counts, the world’s most sophisticated – four times during the same period: from the developing country debt and “savings and loan” crises of the 1980s to the commercial property crisis of the early 1990s and now the subprime and securitised-credit crisis of 2007-08.

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