More people left poverty in the past 70 years than in the whole of history, thanks to the BabyBoomer-led economic SuperCycle. World Bank and OECD data show that less than 10% of the world’s population now live below the extreme poverty line of $1.90/day, compared to 55% in 1950.
Globalisation has been a key element in enabling this progress, as countries and regions began to trade with each other. But now global trade is starting to decline, as the chart from the authoritative Dutch World Trade Monitor shows:
- After a good start to 2018, February saw trade fall 0.7% in February and 1.2% in March
- The major slowdown was in Asia, particularly China, as its lending began to slow
And then on Friday, President Trump confirmed the opening of his long-planned trade wars:
- He imposed 25% import tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminium from Canada, Mexico and the European Union
- Similar tariffs were already in place on imports from China, Russia and other countries
- America’s longest standing allies have since imposed their own sanctions in retaliation
- The stage is now set for a developing global trade war as more countries join in
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS IMPLEMENTING THE POLICIES ON WHICH HE WAS ELECTED
None of this should have been a surprise, as it simply follows the agenda that President Trump set out in his Gettysburg speech just before the election. His policy proposals then, which I featured here in depth in January 2017, were crystal clear about his objectives, as the slide shows:
- Those policies marked in red are now being introduced
- Only 2 of them – around China being a currency manipulator, and infrastructure – are still to be delivered
- Yet companies, commentators and analysts have preferred to ignore the obvious
It was clear then, and is even clearer today, that Trump intends to abandon the policies followed by all post-War Republican and Democratic presidents including Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton, and summarised in President Kennedy’s 1961 Inauguration Speech:
“To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do–for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.”
As I noted after Trump’s own Inauguration Speech in January last year, he broke very explicitly with these policies:
“We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city in every foreign capital and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families.”
BAD NEWS HAS ALWAYS LED TO MORE STIMULUS IN THE PAST
Unsurprisingly, financial markets have chosen to ignore this rise in protectionism. For them, bad news is always good news, as they expect the central banks to provide more stimulus via their money-printing policies. As the left-hand chart shows of Prof Robert Shiller’s CAPE Index (Cyclically Adjusted Price/Earnings ratio) since 1881:
- When Trump took office, the ratio was already at 28.5 – above the 1901 and 1966 peaks
- Since then it has peaked at 33.3, above the 1929 peak
- Only 2000 was higher at 44, when the end of the SuperCycle coincided with the Fed’s first liquidity programme to prevent any problems with the Y2K issue
The right-hand chart confirms the bubble nature of the rally:
- It compares S&P 500 developments with the level of margin debt in the New York Stock Exchange
- Until 1985, the Fed operated on the principle of “taking away the punchbowl as the party gets going“
- Since then, it has increasingly believed, as then Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said in November 2010
“Higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion.”
As a result, the S&P 500 has risen along with margin debt, which peaked at $659bn in January ($2018).
FINANCIAL MARKETS HAVE AN UNPLEASANT “SURPRISE” AHEAD AS CHINA SLOWS
It is therefore no great surprise that financial markets have continued to ignore developments in the real world.
Yet a decline in world trade, and the rise in protectionism, will inevitably produce Winners and Losers. This will be quite different from the SuperCycle, when the rise of globalisation created “win-win opportunities” for countries and regions:
- Essentially the deal was that consumers in richer countries got cheaper, well-made, products
- People in poorer countries gained paid employment for the first time in history by making these products
History also suggests President Trump will be proved wrong with his March suggestion that: “Trade wars are good and easy to win”. Like all wars, they are easy to start and increasingly difficult to end.
So far, financial markets have ignored these uncomfortable facts. They still believe that any bad news will lead to even more central bank stimulus, and a further rise in margin debt.
But as I noted last week, China – not the Fed – was in fact the major source of stimulus lending. Now its lending bubble is history, the party in financial markets is inevitably entering its end-game.
The post Financial markets party as global trade wars begin appeared first on Chemicals & The Economy.
There should be no surprise that President Trump has launched his trade war with China. The real surprise is that financial markets, and business leaders, are so surprised it is happening. He was, after all, elected on a platform that called for a trade war, as I noted originally back in November 2016 – and many times since, even just last month.
Nor is it a surprise that China has chosen to target chemicals in its proposed list of products for retaliation. As my colleague John Richardson has noted:
“On Tuesday, China’s reaction to that first round of $50bn US tariffs included proposed tariffs of 25% on US exports of low and linear-low density polyethylene. The same tariffs could also be levied on US polycarbonate, polyvinyl chloride, plastic products in general, acrylonitrile, catalysts, lubricants, epoxy resin, acrylic polymers, vinyl polymers, polyamides (nylon) and surfactants.”
China, unlike almost everyone else it seems, has used the past 15 months to prepare for Trump’s trade war. So they are naturally targeting the chemicals industry – which was a great supporter of Trump in the early days, and has also come to depend on China for much of its growth.
They will have seen this December 2016 photo of Dow Chemicals CEO, Andrew Liveris, joining Trump at a victory rally in Michigan.
They will also have read Liveris’ tribute to the new President, when announcing the opening of a new R&D centre in Michigan:
“This decision is because of this man and these policies,” Mr. Liveris said from the stage of the 6,000-seat Deltaplex Arena here, adding, “I tingle with pride listening to you.”
The fact that Liveris stepped down last year as head of Trump’s manufacturing council will also have been noticed in Beijing, but clearly did not change their strategy.
FINANCIAL MARKETS EXPECT THE FED TO BE A FAIRY GODMOTHER
Industry now has a few weeks left to plan for the inevitable. But if history is any guide, many business people will fail to take advantage of this narrowing window of opportunity. Instead, like most investors, they will continue with “business as usual”. The problem is simple:
- A whole generation has grown up expecting the central banks to act as a fairy godmother
- Whenever markets have moved downwards, Fed Chairmen and others have showered them with cash
- Therefore the winning strategy for the past 20 years and more has been to “buy on the dips”
- Similarly, industry no longer bothers with genuine scenario analysis, where bad things can and do happen
Another key factor in this developing drama is that not all the actors are equally important. China seems to have been initially wrong-footed, for example, by placing its trust in Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, and US Ambassador to China, Terry Branstad, to argue its case. They might appear on paper to be the right people to lobby, but at the end of the day, they are simply messengers – not the ones deciding policy.
The key people are the US Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, and his aide, Peter Navarro. They are now being joined by arch-hawk John Bolton, who in his role as National Security Advisor can be expected to play a key role – along with newly appointed Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. Like everything in the Trump White House, Lighthizer’s power comes from his relationship with the President, as the Wall Street Journal describes:
“To Mr. Trump, Mr. Lighthizer was a kindred spirit on trade—and one who shuns the limelight. The two men, who have a similar chip-on-the-shoulder sense of humor, bonded. Mr. Lighthizer caught rides to his Florida home on Air Force One. Mr. Trump summons Mr. Lighthizer regularly to the Oval Office to discuss trade matters, administration officials say.”
THE NEXT 6 MONTHS WILL BE A WAKE-UP CALL FOR MANY
The past 18 months have in many ways been a repeat of the 2007-8 period, when I was told my warnings of a subprime crisis were simply alarmist. This complacency even lasted into October 2008, after the Lehman collapse, when senior executives were still telling me the problems were “only financial” and wouldn’t impact “the real world”.
Similarly, I have been told since September 2015, when I first began warning of the dangers posed by populism in the US and Europe, that I “didn’t understand”. It was clear, I was told, that Trump could “never” become the Republican candidate and could “never ever” become President – and if he did, then Congress would “never ever ever” allow him to take charge of trade policy. Similarly, I was being told in March 2016 that the UK would “never” vote for Brexit.
I also understand why so many friends and colleagues have been blindsided by these developments, as I discussed in the same September 2015 post:
“The economic success of the BabyBoomer-led SuperCycle meant that politics as such took a back seat. People no longer needed to argue over “who got what” as there seemed to be plenty for everyone. But today, those happy days are receding into history – hence the growing arguments over inequality and relative income levels.
“Companies and investors have had little experience of how such debates can impact them in recent decades. They now need to move quickly up the learning curve. Political risk is becoming a major issue, as it was before the 1990s.”
TIME TO DEVELOP PROPER SCENARIOS ANALYSIS
Nobody can forecast everything in detail over the next 6 months, let alone the next few years. And it is very easy to mock if one detail of the scenario analysis turns out to be wrong. But the point of scenario analysis is not to try and forecast every detail. It is instead to give you time to prepare, and to think of alternative strategies.
Just imagine, for example, if you had taken seriously my September 2015 warning about the rise of populism:
- Think about all the decisions you wouldn’t have made, if you had really believed that Trump could become President and Brexit could happen in the UK?
- Think of all the decisions you would have made instead, to create options in case these developments occurred?
I understand that you may worry about being mocked for being “stupid” and “alarmist”. But you should simply remind the mockers of the lesson learnt by insurer Aetna’s CEO, from his failure to undertake proper scenario analysis, as he described in November 2016:
“When Aetna ran through post-election expectations, the idea that Donald J. Trump would win the presidency and that Republicans would control both chambers of Congress seemed so implausible that it was not even in play. We started with a fresh piece of paper yesterday — we had no idea how to approach it. What we would have spent months doing if we thought it was even remotely possible, we had to do in a day.”
There is no doubt that he was the one feeling stupid, then.
The post Trump’s trade war should set warning bells ringing for every company and investor appeared first on Chemicals & The Economy.
It is almost a year since Donald Trump became President. And whilst he has not followed through on many of his promises, he has indeed introduced the major policy changes that I began to discuss in September 2015, when I first suggested he could win the election and that the Republicans could control Congress:
“In the USA, the establishment candidacies of Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and Jeb Bush for the Republicans are being upstaged by the two populist candidates – Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump….Companies and investors have had little experience of how such debates can impact them in recent decades. They now need to move quickly up the learning curve. Political risk is becoming a major issue, as it was before the 1990s.”
Many people have therefore had to go up a steep learning curve over the past year, given that their starting point was essentially disbelief, as one commentator noted when my analysis first appeared:
“I have a very, very, very difficult time imagining that populist movements could have significant traction in the U.S. Congress in passing legislation that would seriously affect companies and investors.”
Yet this, of course, is exactly what has happened.
It is true that many of the promises in candidate Trump’s Contract with America have been ignored:
- Of his 174 promises, 13 have been achieved, 18 are in process, 37 have been broken, 3 have been partially achieved and 103 have not started
- His top priority of a Constitutional amendment on term limits for members of Congress has not moved forward
Yet on areas that impact companies and investors, such as trade and corporate tax, the President has moved forward:
- On trade, he has not (yet?) labelled China a currency manipulator or moved forward to fix water and environmental infrastructure
- But he has announced the renegotiation of NAFTA, the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, his intention to withdraw from the UN Climate Change programme and lifted restrictions on fossil fuel production
These are complete game-changers in terms of America’s position in the world and its trading relationships.
Over the decades following World War 2, Republican and Democrat Presidents alike saw trade as the key to avoiding further wars by building global prosperity. Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton all actively supported the growth of global trade and the creation of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The US also led the world in environmental protection following publication of Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring‘ in 1962, with its attack on the over-use of pesticides.
Clearly, today, these priorities no longer matter to President Trump. And already, US companies are starting to lose out as politics, rather than economics, once again begins to dominate global trade. We are returning to the trading models that operated before WTO:
- Until the 1990s, trade largely took place within trading blocs rather than globally – in Europe, for example, the West was organised in the Common Market and the East operated within the Soviet Union
- It is therefore very significant that one of the President’s first attacks has been on the WTO, where he has disrupted its work by blocking the appointment of new judges
Trump’s policy is instead based on the idea of bilateral trade agreements with individual countries, with the US dominating the relationship. Understandably, many countries dislike this prospect and are instead preferring to work with China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI, formerly known as One Belt, One Road).
US POLYETHYLENE PRODUCERS WILL BE A CASE STUDY FOR THE IMPACT OF THE NEW POLICIES
US polyethylene (PE) producers are likely to provide a case study of the problems created by the new policies.
They are now bringing online around 6 million tonnes of new shale gas-based production. It had been assumed a large part of this volume could be exported to China. But the chart above suggests this now looks unlikely:
- China’s PE market has indeed seen major growth since 2015, up 18% on a January – November basis. Part of this is one-off demand growth, as China moved to ban imports of scrap product in 2017. Its own production has also grown in line with total demand at 17%
- But at the same time, its net imports rose by 1.8 million tonnes, 19%, with the main surge in 2017. This was a perfect opportunity for US producers to increase their exports as their new capacity began to come online
- Yet, actual US exports only rose 194kt – within NAFTA, Mexico actually outperformed with its exports up 197kt
- The big winner was the Middle East, a key part of the BRI, which saw its volume jump 29% by 1.36 million tonnes
Sadly, it seems likely that 2018 will see further development of such trading blocs:
- The President’s comments last week, when he reportedly called Africa and Haiti “shitholes” will clearly make it more difficult to build long-term relationships based on trust with these countries
- They also caused anguish in traditionally pro-American countries such as the UK – adding to concerns that he has lost his early interest in the promised post-Brexit “very big and exciting” trade deal.
US companies were already facing an uphill task in selling all their new shale gas-based PE output. The President’s new trade policies will make this task even more difficult, given that most of it will have to be exported.
The post US PE exports on front line as Trump changes trade policies appeared first on Chemicals & The Economy.
We are living in a strange world. As in 2007 – 2008, financial news continues to be euphoric, yet the general news is increasingly gloomy. As Nobel Prizewinner Richard Thaler, has warned, “We seem to be living in the riskiest moment of our lives, and yet the stock market seems to be napping.” Both views can’t continue to exist alongside each other for ever. Whichever scenario comes out on top in 2018 will have major implications for investors and companies.
It therefore seems prudent to start building scenarios around some of the key risk areas – increased volatility in oil and interest rates, protectionism and the threat to free trade (including Brexit), and political disorder. One key issue is that the range of potential outcomes is widening.
Last year, for example, it was reasonable to use $50/bbl as a Base case forecast for oil prices, and then develop Upside and Downside cases using a $5/bbl swing either way. But today’s rising levels of uncertainty suggests such narrow ranges should instead be regarded as sensitivities rather than scenarios. In 2018, the risks to a $50/bbl Base case appear much larger:
- On the Downside, US output is now rising very fast given today’s higher prices. The key issue with fracking is that the capital cost is paid up-front, and once the money has been spent, the focus is on variable cost – where most published data suggests actual operating cost is less than $10/bbl. US oil and product exports have already reached 7mbd, so it is not hard to see a situation where over-supplied energy markets cause prices to crash below $40/bbl at some point in 2018
- On the Upside, instability is clearly rising in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia’s young Crown Prince, Mohammad bin Salman is already engaged in proxy wars with Iran in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. He has also arrested hundreds of leading Saudis, and fined them hundreds of billions of dollars in exchange for their release. If he proves to have over-extended himself, the resulting political confusion could impact the whole Middle East, and easily take prices above $75/bbl
Unfortunately, oil price volatility is not the only risk facing us in 2018. As the chart shows, the potential for a debt crisis triggered by rising interest rates cannot be ignored, given that the current $34tn total of central bank debt is approaching half of global GDP. Most media attention has been on the US Federal Reserve, which is finally moving to raise rates and “normalise” monetary policy. But the real action has been taking place in the emerging markets. 10-year benchmark bond rates have risen by a third in China over the past year to 4%, whilst rates are now at 6% in India, 7.5% in Russia and 10% in Brazil.
An “inflation surprise” could well prove the catalyst for such a reappraisal of market fundamentals. In the past, I have argued that deflation is the likely default outcome for the global economy, given its long-term demographic and demand deficits. But markets tend not to move in straight lines, and 2018 may well bring a temporary inflation spike, as China’s President Xi has clearly decided to tackle the country’s endemic pollution early in his second term. He has already shutdown thousands of polluting companies in many key industries such as steel, metal smelting, cement and coke.
His roadmap is the landmark ‘China 2030’ joint report from the World Bank and China’s National Development and Reform Commission. This argued that China needed to transition: “From policies that served it so well in the past to ones that address the very different challenges of a very different future”.
But, of course, transitions can be a dangerous time, as China’s central bank chief, Zhou Xiaochuan, highlighted at the 5-yearly Party Congress in October, when warning that China risks a “Minsky Moment“, where lenders and investors suddenly realise they have overpaid for their assets, and all rush together for the exits – as in 2008 in the west.
“Business as usual” is always the most popular strategy, as it means companies and investors don’t face a need to make major changes. But we all know that change is inevitable over time. And at a certain moment, time can seem to literally “stand still” whilst sudden and sometimes traumatic change erupts.
At such moments, as in 2008, commentators rush to argue that “nobody could have seen this coming“. But, of course, this is nonsense. What they actually mean is that “nobody wanted to see this coming“. Nobody wanted to be focusing on contingency plans when everybody else seemed to be laughing all the way to the bank.
I discuss these issues in more detail in my annual Outlook for 2018. Please click here to download this, and click here to watch the video interview with ICB deputy editor, Will Beacham.
The post The return of volatility is the key market risk for 2018 appeared first on Chemicals & The Economy.
No country in the world now has a top quality pension system. That’s the conclusion from the latest Report by pensions consultants Melbourne Mercer. As the chart above shows:
- Denmark and The Netherlands have fallen out of the top category
- In the G7 wealthy nations: Canada is in category B; Germany and UK in C+; France, US and Italy in C; Japan in D
- In the BRICS emerging economies: Brazil is in category C; India, China and S Africa are D; and Russia’s system is so poor it is unclassified
Unsurprisingly, the cause of the problems is today’s ‘demographic deficit’, as the authors highlight:
“The provision of financial security in retirement is critical for both individuals and societies as most countries are now grappling with the social, economic and financial effects of ageing populations. The major causes of this demographic shift are declining birth rates and increasing longevity. Inevitably these developments are placing financial pressure on current retirement income systems. Indeed, the sustainability of some current systems is under threat.”
These problems have been building for years, as politicians have not wanted to have difficult conversations with voters over raising the retirement age. Instead, they have preferred to ignore the issue, hoping that it will go away.
But, of course, problems that are ignored tend to get worse over time, rather than go away. In the US, public pension funds saw their deficits jump $343bn last year to $3.85tn – making it almost certain that, eventually, pension benefits will have to be cut and taxes raised.
The issue has been that politicians preferred to believe central bank stimulus programmes could solve the deficit by cutting interest rates and printing large amounts of virtually free cash. And unfortunately, when it became clear this policy was failing to work, the banks “doubled down” and pursued negative interest rates rather than admitting defeat:
- Currently, 17% of all bonds (worth $8tn), trade at negative rates
- Swiss bond yields are negative out to 2027, as the Pensions Partners chart shows
- Most major European countries, and Japan, suffer from negative rates
2 years ago, Swiss pension experts suggested that its pension system would be bankrupt within 10 years, due to the requirement to pay retirees an annuity of 6.8% of their total savings each year. This rate is clearly unaffordable with negative interest rates, unless the funds take massive risks with their capital.
The US faces similar problems with Social Security, which is the major source of income for most retirees. The Trustees forecast its reserves will be depleted by 2034, when benefits will need to be cut by around a quarter. Medicare funds for hospital and nursing will be depleted by 2029. And as the Social Security Administration reports:
“173 million workers are covered under Social Security. 46% of the workforce in private industry has no private pension coverage. 39% of workers report that they and/or their spouse have not personally saved any money for retirement.”
Rising life expectancy is a key part of the problem, as the World Economic Forum (WEF) reported in May. Back in 1889, life expectancy was under 50 when Bismarck introduced the world’s first state pension in Germany. Today, the average baby born in the G7 countries can expect to live to be 100. As WEF conclude:
“One obvious implication of living longer is that we are going to have to spend longer working. The expectation that retirement will start early- to mid-60s is likely to be a thing of the past, or a privilege of the very wealthy.”
Sadly, politicians are still in denial, as President Trump’s proposed tax cuts confirm.
Today is not 1986, when President Reagan cut taxes in his October 1986 Tax Reform Act and was rewarded with higher tax revenues. 30 years ago, more and more BabyBoomers were entering the wealth creating 25 – 54 age group, as the chart from the Atlanta Fed confirms:
The issue is the ageing of the Boomers combined with the collapse of fertility rates:
- The oldest Boomers left the Wealth Creator cohort in 2001, and the average Boomer (born in 1955) left in 2010
- The relative number of Wealth Creators is also in decline, as US fertility rates have been below replacement level (2.1 babies/woman) for 45 years since 1970
Inevitably, therefore, Reagan’s demographic dividend has become Trump’s demographic deficit.
As I warned back in May, debt and demographics are set to destroy Trump’s growth dream. And without immigration, the US working age population will fall by 18m by 2035, making a bad situation even worse. Instead of tax cuts, Trump should instead be focused on 3 key priorities to:
- “Design measures to support older Boomers to stay in the workforce
- Reverse the decline that has taken place in corporate funding for pensions
- Tackle looming deficits in Social Security and Medicare”
Future retirees will not thank him for creating yet further debt headwinds by proposing unfunded tax cuts. These might boost GDP in the short-term. But they will certainly make it even more difficult to solve tomorrow’s pension deficits.
Next week, I will publish my annual Budget Outlook, covering the 2018-2020 period. The aim, as always, will be to challenge conventional wisdom when this seems to be heading in the wrong direction. Before publishing the new Outlook each year, I always like to review my previous forecast. Past performance may not be a perfect guide to the future, but it is the best we have:
The 2007 Outlook ‘Budgeting for a Downturn‘, and 2008′s ‘Budgeting for Survival’ meant I was one of the few to forecast the 2008 Crisis
2009′s ‘Budgeting for a New Normal’ was then more positive than the consensus, suggesting “2010 should be a better year, as demand grows in line with a recovery in global GDP“
The 2010 Outlook was ‘Budgeting for Uncertainty’. This introduced the concept of Scenario planning, to help deal with “today’s increasingly uncertain New Normal environment.”
2011 was ‘Budgeting for Austerity’. It anticipated weak growth across Europe as a result of the austerity measures being introduced, and disappointing global growth, whilst arguing that major new opportunities were opening up as a result of changing demographic trends
2012 was ‘Budgeting for an L-shaped recovery’, arguing that recovery was unlikely to meet expectations
2013 was ‘Budgeting for a VUCA world‘ where Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity would dominate
2014 was ‘Budgeting for the Cycle of Deflation‘, 2015 was ’Budgeting for the Great Unwinding of policymaker stimulus’, 2016 was ‘Budgeting for the Great Reckoning’
Please click here if you would like to download a free copy of all the Budget Outlooks.
My argument last year was that companies and investors would begin to run up against the reality of the impact of today’s “demographic deficit”. They would find demand had fallen far short of policymakers’ promises. As the chart shows, the IMF had forecast in 2011 that 2016 growth would be 4.7%, but in reality it was a third lower at just 3.2%. I therefore argued:
“This false optimism has now created some very negative consequences:
Companies committed to major capacity expansions during the 2011 – 2013 period, assuming demand growth would return to “normal” levels
Policymakers committed to vast stimulus programmes, assuming that the debt would be paid off by a mixture of “normal” growth and rising inflation
Today, this means that companies are losing pricing power as this new capacity comes online, whilst governments have found their debt is still rising in real terms
“This is the Great Reckoning that now faces investors and companies as they plan their Budgets for 2017 – 2019.”
Oil markets are just one example of what has happened. A year ago, OPEC had forecast its new quotas would “rebalance the oil market” in H1 this year. When this proved over-optimistic, they had to be extended for a further 9 months into March 2018. Now, it expects to have to extend them through the whole of 2018. And even today’s fragile supply/demand balance is only due to China’s massive purchases to fill its Strategic Reserve.
Policymakers’ unrealistic view of the world has also had political and social consequences, as I noted in the Outlook:
“The problem, of course, is that it will take years to undo the damage that has been done. Stimulus policies have created highly dangerous bubbles in many financial markets, which may well burst before too long. They have also meant it is most unlikely that governments will be able to keep their pension promises, as I warned a year ago.
Of course, it is still possible to hope that “something may turn up” to support “business as usual” Budgets. But hope is not a strategy. Today’s economic problems are already creating political and social unrest. And unfortunately, the outlook for 2017 – 2019 is that the economic, political and social landscape will become ever more uncertain.”
As the second chart confirms from Ipsos MORI, most people in the world’s major countries feel things are going in the wrong direction. Voters have lost confidence in the political elite’s ability to deliver on its promises. Almost everywhere one looks today, one now sees potential “accidents waiting to happen”.
Understandably, Populism gains support in such circumstances as people feel they and their children are losing out.
The last 10 years have proved that stimulus programmes cannot substitute for a lack of babies. They generate debt mountains instead of sustainable demand, and so make the problems worse, not better.
Next week, I will look at what may happen in the 2018 – 2020 period, and the key risks that have developed as a result of the policy failures of the past decade.
The post The Great Reckoning for policymakers’ failures has begun appeared first on Chemicals & The Economy.