Mohamed El-Erian

By Mohamed El-Erian
The opinions expressed are his own.

European officials must feel like that they were just on the receiving end of an “intervention” staged by their colleagues from other countries – a process whereby a group of people come together to “shock” a friend/family member into recognizing the depth of a personal crisis and the urgency of embarking on proper corrective actions.

The venue was this past weekend’s Annual Meetings of the IMF and World Bank. This event brings together policymakers from almost 190 countries, along with business leaders and media. It is full of formal meetings, seminars, press conferences, and bilateral discussions.

It is a well-attended gathering that serves many purposes. One of them is to enable policymakers to collectively get a feel for the state of a highly inter-connected and complex global economy. At times in the past, this has proved absolutely critical for designing policy responses that avoided terrible collective outcomes.

This was certainly the case in 2008. On that occasion, a series of consultations and discussions led policymakers from around the world to the startling conclusion that, after the disorderly collapse of Lehman Brothers, the global economy risked tipping into a great depression.

The follow-up was one of the most impressive examples of global policy coordination that culminated in the highly successful G-20 Summit in London in April 2009. The world averted an economic depression that would have spread unemployment, poverty and misery all over the world.

Unfortunately, it did not take long for such coordination to give way to competing and, at times, conflicting national agendas and narratives. This was particularly true in America and Europe where policymakers failed to understand and act on consequential global and national realignments.

Today the global economy is highly vulnerable to major dislocations on account of  three distinct but mutually reinforcing problems: a sovereign debt crisis (whose epicenter is in Europe), banking system fragilities (Europe), and an inability to grow robustly (America and Europe).

As Europe features in all three, it should come as no surprise that European officials were approached by lots of people this weekend in Washington. Many wanted to understand what the European policymakers had in mind; and they wished to ring a very loud alarm that would spur these officials into bold and decisive action.

Wherever they turned, European officials heard a consistent message which typically consisted of four specific points:

•       The bickering and dithering of European politicians and policymakers have allowed the crisis that originated in Greece to spread too far and wide;

•       The crisis is has now gotten close — far too close — to being uncontrollable;

•       Virtually no country in the world would be immune from the adverse consequences; and, therefore,

•       Europe needs to finally step up with decisive policies that are underpinned by a common political vision of what the Eurozone should look like in five years time.

Initially, the reactions of most Europeans ran the gambit: from denying the severity of the crisis to diverting the blame elsewhere. Some hit back, noting that they were neither blind nor deaf. By the end of the meeting, however, most seem to have heard the messages, taken them to heart, and indicated their intention to act on them.

Recognition and proper diagnosis are essential components of a durable solution to a problem. It is therefore good news for the global economy that, especially after this weekend, there is little doubt in the mind of Europeans about the urgency of their situation. They also know that the world is watching and hoping.

It is also good news that some key officials even went so far as to identify a timetable for action – the six-week run-up to the next G-20 meeting in France. True, it is a timetable that is excessively influenced by political considerations rather than economic and financial ones. As such, it may be challenged by markets that are unsettled by fragilities in both sovereign debt and banking systems.

So, will this Washington intervention and timetable hold? The answer depends on five key issues:

First, the Europeans must take immediate — and I stress immediate — actions to stabilize the banking system and counter more effectively the persistent recent rise in yields on government debt issued by Italy and Spain in particular. This cannot wait six weeks.

Second, they must quickly come up with operational mechanisms that build secure firewalls around at least one highly troubled country (Greece) so that it can default without triggering a tsunami for others in the Eurozone.

This will only be possible if, and this is the third point, the European Central Bank (which has been carrying most of the burden so far) receives much more support from national fiscal and regulatory authorities.

Fourth, bold structural decisions must be taken to strengthen the architecture and functioning of what, in the final analysis, is likely to be a smaller, less imperfect and stronger Eurozone.

Finally, politicians must secure the airspace for the technocrats that are waging difficult day-to-day battles through better communication, a common vision and a unified purpose.

This is quite a list, and there is very little time to waste.

By Mohamed A. El-Erian
The opinions expressed are his own.

Unlike recent G-7 meetings of finance ministers and central bankers that were essentially ignored, there was quite a bit of interest in the one held over this past weekend in Marseille. That interest turned out to be misplaced, however, as the G-7 delivered little of substance yet again.

Once more, the G-7 issued a communiqué whose disappointing lack of content contrasts sharply with the deteriorating health of the global economy, the intense risks ahead, and legitimate policy confusion. As an illustration, try reconciling the G-7′s “catch all” wording on fiscal policy — “we must all set out and implement ambitious and growth-friendly fiscal consolidation plans rooted within credible fiscal frameworks” — with the two strikingly opposing views expressed last week by Germany’s Finance Minister and the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

It is not just that the G-7 disagrees on policy prescriptions; the group failed again to converge to the type of common analysis that lies at the root of any coherent policy formulation.

Neither the global economy nor the financial markets can wait for the G-7 to get its act together — especially as the world’s three main economic areas each face a set of mounting challenges.

With structural impediments to both economic growth and the safe de-levering of excessive indebtedness, America’s economy is succumbing to the cumulative impact of policy shortfalls and political dysfunction. If President Obama’s speech from last Thursday fails to act as a dramatic economic and political catalyst, it is just a matter of time before America tips into another recession, unemployment rises even further, and a growing number of households and small companies are forced into bankruptcy.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Europe’s dithering policy response means that the functioning and institutional integrity of the Euro-zone are now threatened by more than just the troubled sovereign credit of peripheral economies. The European financial system is under enormous pressure as markets legitimately worry about both bank capital inadequacy and the continuous deterioration of asset quality.

All this puts the emerging economies in a tough policy position. With strong balance sheets and growing domestic resilience, they have the unusual historic ability to act counter-cyclically to stimulate internal demand and, thereby, insulate their populations from the West’s malaise while allowing for a more orderly global rebalancing.

Yet the incoherence of policies in America and Europe translates into less inclination for emerging economies to do so. Indeed, they may well opt instead for greater self insurance and, in the process, become another pro-cyclical driver for a weakening global economy.

With these issues continuing to fester, attention now shifts from this weekend’s disappointing G-7 to the IMF/World Bank meetings in Washington in two weeks and the subsequent G-20 Summit in France. The hope is that the former can lead to a common analysis of what ails the global economy, and that the latter allows for better policy formulation. In the meantime, look for markets to fret about the worrisome global economic outlook and a depressing lack of global policy coordination.

The G-7 is fortunate that it is not required to justify the expenses of its meetings in terms of what is achieved. If it had to, these meetings would be more decisive and/or less frequent.

By Mohamed El-Erian
The opinions expressed are his own.

This weekend’s Labor Day celebrations in America mark a difficult time for workers. Having experienced a multi-year decline in their share of national income, they are now suffering the brunt of the current economic malaise; and there is little to suggest that the situation will improve any time soon. As a result, the country’s economic hardships risk morphing from pressuring specific segments of the population to undermining more general aspects of social justice.

The numbers are striking — and worrisome. Over the last 30 years, labor’s share of the national pie has declined to 44 percent from 52 percent, with profits growing at twice the annual rate for average wages.

This morning’s monthly employment report adds to the concerns. Unemployment remains very high, whether measured by the most-quoted unemployment rate (9.1 percent), the less partial under- and un-employment rate, (16.2 percent) or, most comprehensively, the proportion of total adults who are not working (42 percent compared to 35 percent 10 years ago).

The duration and composition of joblessness is very troubling. The average unemployed American has been without a job for 40 weeks, a record level, and 44 percent of the unemployed have been out of a job for more than 26 weeks. The incidence of joblessness is severe among those lacking a college degree (11 percent compared to 4 percent for college graduates). For 16-19 year olds the unemployment rate is a horrible 25 percent.

Whichever number you look at, America’s labor market problems constitute a full-blown crisis with far reaching economic, social and political consequences. If current trends continue, joblessness will become stubbornly embedded in the system and, distressingly, some of the unemployed will become unemployable.

We all know that such a crisis fuels rising poverty and misery. Shelter is an issue, too, as mortgage and other debt payments are harder to meet. And credit will become even scarcer for those who are already struggling.

Regrettably, there is little to suggest that, left to its own devices, the economy would improve any time soon. It is mired in low growth and insufficient job creation; and the balance of risks is increasingly tilting toward a recession.

Since economic growth will not solve the issue, what about government action? Here, initial conditions are far from ideal.

Budgets — be it state, local or federal — are generally stretched. Indeed, rather than reduce the challenges facing workers, current budgetary policies accentuate them through cuts in education, health care, emergency benefits and other social services. Meanwhile, active redistribution policies are off the table with our extremely divided Congress vehemently disagreeing on what constitutes appropriate policy responses. And the Federal Reserve is already in full policy experimentation mode, with limited durable impact on economic growth.

It is tempting to blame all this on what economists call an “exogenous factor” – a phenomenon that is outside direct societal control. The two most cited factors are globalization and technological advances.

Globalization has brought hundreds of millions of low paid workers into the global labor force, thus putting pressure on higher paid ones in advanced countries such as the US. Technological progress has allowed companies to raise productivity, helping them generate record profits with fewer employees.

Before embracing this explanation wholeheartedly, it is wise to recall Reinhold Niebuhr’s prayer asking God to grant us the serenity to accept the things that cannot be changed, the courage to change those that can and the wisdom to know the difference.

It is not feasible to reverse either of those two phenomena (globalization and technological advances). It is neither desirable to do so either given that, overall, they have beneficial impact on global welfare.

Think of the millions of people around the world who have been pulled out of absolute poverty and misery. Think also of the wider range of affordable goods available to consumers globally (the largest segment of which is in the US). And think of innovations that have saved lives and improved the quality of life.

Rather than try to unwind globalization and technological progress, the challenge for the US is to adapt its labor force and its economy to these realities.

Through better policy making at both the national and international levels, America should — and can — be a bigger beneficiary rather than a helpless victim. No wonder President Obama’s speech next week is so eagerly anticipated, and rightly so.

While we must not underestimate the significant design and implementation difficulties facing the President, many look to him for restoring America’s economic leadership. This involves three challenging and complex steps (especially given today’s economic, financial and political environment): propose a set of policies that decisively lift structural impediments to growth; mobilize sufficient political support to start the multi-year implementation process; and, as the data evolves, provide for timely mid-course corrections as appropriate.

Better off segments of the population may be tempted to dismiss all this as irrelevant to their particular reality. After all, they are doing well — in several cases, extremely well. But such an attitude is short-sighted. It is not just about fairness; the rich have genuine self-interest in reversing the country’s economic malaise and the worsening of income and wealth inequalities.

Whichever way you look at it, the outlook for the wealthier cannot be divorced from society as a whole. Such considerations have already led some American billionaires to react in dramatic fashion.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are among those leading the way, through both actions and words. Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, has urged companies not to wait for government policy but instead to move more aggressively to employ and produce more. Many others are doing their part, albeit in a less public fashion. They know that national prosperity cannot, and should not, be sustained without social justice.

Unlike many parts of the world, America has experienced, until now, few if any meaningful eruptions of social tensions. Yes, there have been some “flash mobs”, but they pale in comparison to what has occurred elsewhere this summer.

This is not about the comparisons out there to uprisings in Arab countries driven by a thirst for social justice. Rather, it is about what the series of unthinkables that has already occurred in several advanced countries where, facilitated by social media that lowers traditional coordination problems, more people are taking to more streets to express frustration and, in some cases, a call for greater social justice.

Britain and Greece have experienced widespread rioting. Car torching in Germany is now way too common for comfort. France, Italy and Spain have had national strikes. Israel has seen the sudden emergence of a large social movement that has taken both local politicians and worldwide observers by surprise.

This weekend, American workers will understandably temper their celebrations. Their malaise is about more than the challenging economic headwinds. It is about fundamental social issues.

America is now on the growing list of advanced countries where social cohesion is coming under increasing pressure. If left to fester through inadequate public and private sector responses, this phenomenon will damage the welfare of current and future generations. Loud alarm bells should be ringing everywhere.