Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
The Graphic Truth: Summer inflation – then and now
The summer of 2022 was, broadly speaking, the summer of inflation. An energy crunch caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine, coupled with increased post-COVID demand and supply chain kinks sent prices through the roof. Elevated oil and gas, in particular, set records around the globe.
Fast forward a year and inflationary pressures persist in many places, but the trend is mostly headed downward. In some countries – like the US – that’s a good thing, suggesting that the US Fed’s effort to rein in inflation is working (though inflation in the US rose slightly last month for the first time in months). However, in China, for instance, inflation has come down too much and the world’s second-largest country is now grappling with the opposite conundrum: deflation.
Meanwhile, inflation in Russia has plummeted 70% since last August, though current trends suggest it is climbing fast as the value of the Russian ruble nosedives.
India, for its part, is on an anomalous path, with rising food prices as a result of volatile weather conditions having sent inflation soaring last month. We take a look at inflation rates in select economies in Aug. 2022 compared to now.
As inflation nears 100% in Argentina, the political class struggles to respond
Though much of the world is suffering from uncomfortably high inflation as economies adjust to the disruptions brought by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, some countries are grappling with double- or triple-digit price increases. In Argentina, for example, a rapid acceleration of price gains in recent months has economists predicting inflation will reach 100% this year.
We asked Eurasia Group expert Luciano Sigalov to explain the runaway price increases in the South American country and how political leaders are responding to them (or not).
How did we get here?
This is not Argentina’s first bout of very high inflation. The last was in the late 1980s, when inflation topped 4,000%. After a period of price stability in the 1990s, inflation began to accelerate again in 2005 and then skyrocketed over the summer. Prices rose at an annual rate of 83% in September, one of the highest in the world.
Argentina’s longstanding practice of having the central bank print money to finance public spending is the main driver of inflation. More money chasing the same amount of goods bids up prices. Currency depreciation is another driver, because it raises the cost of imported goods, something that is particularly dangerous during a period of high global inflation.
A couple of things happened over the summer to spark a run on the Argentine peso.
What happened?
Earlier this year, Argentina reached a deal with the IMF to refinance a $44 billion loan it received from the multilateral lender in 2018. But in June, concerns started to mount about the country’s ability to comply with the terms of the deal – such as the reduction of the country’s wide budget deficit – prompting investors to sell off the peso. The July resignation of Economy Minister Martin Guzman, the main architect of the IMF agreement, further fueled the sell-off.
How is soaring inflation affecting everyday life?
As prices adjust from one week to the next, a trip to the supermarket has become a surreal experience. People are losing their sense of what things cost and are becoming adept at financial calculations to determine the value of installment plans for purchases. As the pesos in their pockets rapidly lose value, people try to spend them as quickly as possible. This dynamic makes financial planning, and life planning, that much more difficult.
How has President Alberto Fernandez’s administration responded?
To shore up confidence in the local economy and currency, new Economy Minister Sergio Massa has reiterated the country’s commitment to meeting the terms of the deal with the IMF. He is also rolling out a series of measures freezing the prices of key items and offering households targeted relief in the form of subsidized interest rates, tax cuts, and support for inflation-indexed wage deals.
Yet the crisis has created divisions within the administration. Massa wants to prioritize measures to fulfill the terms of the IMF deal, while the powerful Vice President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner wants more price freezes and government handouts. And no one really has the stomach for the type of broad stabilization program economists say is necessary but that would include politically unpopular measures such as aggressive interest rate hikes and cuts in public spending.
What does this mean for the ruling coalition ahead of next year’s elections?
Soaring inflation and bleak economic prospects spell trouble for the ruling coalition in next October’s elections. Maximo Kirchner, a lawmaker in congress and son of the vice president, reflected the somber mood taking hold among the parties of the coalition when he suggested recently that they lacked a competitive candidate to run for president next year. He said that neither Fernandez de Kirchner nor Massa, thought to be strong potential contenders, would be running, and he played down President Fernandez’s reelection prospects.
So, does the opposition offer some hope of a solution to the current difficulties?
Curiously enough, the troubles of the ruling coalition have led to increased tensions within the opposition alliance. The Together for Change coalition has three potential presidential candidates jockeying for position, and there are growing difference among them over electoral strategies and post-electoral policies.
At this point, the opposition has strong incentives to remain united to ensure as broad as possible appeal in next year’s elections. But the deeper the problems of the ruling coalition grow, the more confident the main opposition presidential hopefuls might become about prevailing on their own, without the support of their alliance partners. That could lead to a weaker opposition-led administration, with less support in congress, making politically costly policy changes more difficult.
How US efforts to curb inflation could hurt the developing world
Since the US Federal Reserve dramatically raised interest rates by 0.75 percentage points last week – its fourth hike this year – most analysts have focused on the domestic consequences of the policy: US homebuyers and business owners now face steeper loan repayments – as well as higher rates for new loans – which the Fed expects will dampen surging demand and cool the inflationary economy.
But what about the indirect consequences of the Fed’s move? The impacts of US monetary policy at home are already being felt by emerging market economies. What’s going on and where might this all be headed?
A borrowing bender. Many low-and middle-income economies were already highly indebted before the pandemic, including those involved in China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, which conditioned infrastructure investment on shady loans.
That burden increased in 2020 as many poor countries – missing tourism and remittance dollars, and grappling with dwindling output – upped their borrowing to weather the pandemic, adding a whopping $19.5 trillion to global debt.
Consider some statistics: By October 2020, debt as a percentage of GDP had soared to 214% in Malaysia, 120% in Argentina and 110% in Pakistan. (To be sure, many wealthy countries are also facing very large debt burdens, though they have greater access to financial markets and more tools at their disposal to manage the fallout.)
High indebtedness has left emerging markets more vulnerable to tightening global financial conditions. For the many low and middle income states that still borrow in US dollars, servicing their debts became all the more costly recently when the US Federal Reserve tightened its belt to try and rein in 40-year high inflation. This raises the specter of a new wave of emerging market defaults like the ones that rocked the Global South in the 1980s and 1990s.
What’s more, now that higher interest rates have made US bonds more attractive, many global investors might opt to pull their capital from riskier emerging economies and instead stash their money back in the US. This would weaken emerging market currencies relative to the dollar and put upward pressure on inflation in countries that are already experiencing severe cost-of-living crises. As external financing dries up, many countries would be forced to sharply reduce their consumption and investment, triggering potentially devastating recessions.
This is a particularly big problem for import-reliant countries like Egypt, the most populous country in the Arab world. Grappling with sky-high food prices as a result of the war in Ukraine, Egypt is also bogged down by a debt-to-GDP ratio that now exceeds a whopping 90%. Disruptions to food supplies can be a game changer in Egypt, where roughly two-thirds of the population consume subsidized bread.
The past is prologue … or is it?
Could emerging market economies have done more to insulate themselves from the sort of economic shocks we’re now seeing?
It’s debatable, says Sebastian Strauss, a senior global macro analyst at Eurasia Group. Strauss notes that many low- and middle-income states “have been doing a lot of the right things in recent decades, like accumulating foreign exchange reserves, running smaller current account deficits, reducing their reliance on dollar-denominated debt, and diversifying their trading partners”– steps that, taken together, help build economic resilience. Some emerging market central banks like Mexico’s even started raising interest rates last year in anticipation of the Fed’s tightening cycle to prevent significant currency depreciation, inflation, and capital outflows.
Having learned the lessons from the Asian financial crisis of the 1990s, many Asian states in particular have undertaken significant reforms to build economic buffers, including increasing their foreign currency reserves, which central banks can use to bolster their national currencies. Consider that in 1997, Thailand’s foreign reserves were about 19% of its GDP; now they are around 52%.
Of course, many countries could have done more. Still, Strauss notes that “no one could have predicted the double whammy of exogenous shocks” – the pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war – that have fueled the global credit crunch we’re now seeing.
Who is most vulnerable? Developing countries face a range of challenges, but some are at greater risk than others of joining the ranks of Sri Lanka as a recently collapsed economy. Those that run persistent current account deficits (i.e., spend more than they earn) and finance the shortfall with dollar-denominated borrowing are particularly vulnerable.
Bangladesh, with its foreign reserves having dried up, is in dire economic straits, as is the West African country of Ghana, where high levels of government debt – exacerbated by the global energy crunch – prompted the government to recently appeal to the International Monetary Fund for a bailout. Meanwhile, many analysts say that Pakistan, which relies almost entirely on food and fuel imports and whose currency has lost 30% of its value against the greenback this year, could be next to default on its foreign debt.
Looking ahead. Social unrest is never far behind economic instability. Governments across Latin America, Asia, and Africa are surely on edge … and will be for some time.
Big bad bear market
If you're an American worker with a 401(k), you're probably worried about being in the claws of a certain furry animal everyone seems to be talking about these days.
We're referring to a bear market, a Wall Street term for when the value of stock indices like the Dow Jones Industrial or the S&P 500 fall under 20% or more from a recent peak for a sustained period of time. Since bears hibernate, it’s investor-speak for a market in retreat.
On June 13, the S&P 500 officially entered bear market territory — with big implications for both investors and people who are indirect participants in the stock market through their 401(k), America's most popular company-sponsored retirement account. Simply put, since your 401(k) is likely invested in stocks, the longer the current slump lasts, the less money you'll have for retirement.
But that's only true if the bear market is still ongoing when you retire.
In other words, if you can afford to wait it out, odds are that the bear will eventually be followed by a bull (market) — aka a cycle of expansion — once the current economic turmoil subsides. Still, you might have a problem if you're a baby boomer with only a few years left to reach retirement age, in which case you'll have to crunch the numbers to decide whether it's best to cash out now — with less money, and pay taxes on what you withdraw — or pin your hopes on a swift recovery.
The thing is, no one knows how long bear markets last. The average historical duration is about a year, but in the early 1970s the bear stayed in its cave for almost two years, the S&P 500 lost half its value, and the US economy took a whopping 69 months to completely recover.
During the 2007-2008 Great Recession, the S&P 500 decline was even sharper (57%) and the market only recovered after 49 months.
Will the bear be followed by an even scarier recession? Maybe, but it's not guaranteed.
One key difference between the current US bear market and previous ones that preceded recessions is that unemployment is still very low at 3.6%. When Americans start losing their jobs at a higher rate, though, that's likely a sign that a recession is on the way.
What’s more, with the Fed getting tough on interest rates to tame sky-high inflation, it’s certainly possible that the US economy won’t hit the Goldilocks “soft landing” of bringing inflation down to about 2% while avoiding a recession (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth).
Regardless, “making any prediction is unusually fraught” now due to an unprecedented set of shocks, including COVID and the war in Ukraine, says Robert Kahn, Eurasia Group's director of Global Macro-Geoeconomics.
Still, he adds, a recession seems more likely than not. It'll be painful, but not necessarily a catastrophe.
“Recessions can be moderate in tone,” Kahn explains. And whether or not we get one, “we’re going to have tremendous uncertainty heading into this slowdown period about how that plays out.”
Who’s to blame for inflation?
I posted something on Twitter last Sunday that I didn’t think particularly novel or controversial but that has since gotten a lot of play:
Now, many folks missed the point of the tweet and instead took issue with me calling the U.S. government “left,” which I agree it isn’t really when you consider the policies and worldview President Biden espouses. Looked from, say, Europe, Biden is a centrist or even center-right. In fact, from a global perspective, the entire U.S. political spectrum—including most Democrats—sits on the right.
But of course, that’s not how most Americans see it. If instead I had called the U.S. government a right-wing one, my post would no doubt have been met with more derision. Fox News and elected Republicans say Biden and the Democrats are a bunch of socialists, and even if they wouldn’t go that far, the majority of Americans broadly think of the Democratic Party as being on the left. As far as my argument is concerned, that’s the only thing that matters.
Want to understand the world a little better? Subscribe to GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer for free and get new posts delivered to your inbox every week.
So what is my argument?
That the multidecade-high inflation that we’re currently experiencing in the United States—and in the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Italy, Brazil, and so many others—is a global phenomenon with global, not domestic, origins. It has nothing to do with the specific political parties or leaders in government. It doesn’t matter whether it was Trump or Biden, Johnson or Starmer, Scholz or Laschet, or Bolsonaro or Haddad that got elected—we still would have gotten high inflation globally.
Don’t get me wrong: it's understandable that when something upsetting like high and persistent inflation happens in a country that’s so divided like the U.S., people are going to blame the government in charge. The buck, as they say, stops with the president. But just because the political reaction is understandable, it doesn’t mean that the government is actually to blame. And that’s a difference I want my readers to understand.
What did cause the global inflation shock?
First was the Covid-19 pandemic, which disrupted labor markets and global supply chains and prompted governments everywhere to try to cushion the fall in incomes by putting cash into people’s wallets. The policy response worked wonders, preventing millions from falling into unemployment, bankruptcy, and poverty. At a time when supply was constrained, though, the flipside of people having enough money to spend was a rise in goods inflation.
Then, just as the United States and Europe were coming out of the pandemic and supply and demand were starting to normalize, China doubled down on its zero-Covid policy in the face of the highly contagious Omicron variant, locking down some of the global economy’s most important manufacturing and shipping hubs and boosting goods inflation further.And then on February 24 Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to launch a war of aggression against Ukraine, triggering Western sanctions and leading to massive dislocations in the global supply of energy, food, and fertilizer. As a consequence, the prices of these critical commodities shot through the roof.
This unprecedented confluence of overlapping shocks naturally led to inflation almost everywhere (China and Japan being the notable exceptions). Frankly, you’d be surprised if it hadn’t.
In hindsight, it’s easy to criticize the U.S. government for doing too much fiscal stimulus—especially in 2020—and the Federal Reserve for failing to tighten monetary policy sooner. Heck, some commentators are making a living out of it.
But hindsight is 20/20 and policymaking is hard. Let’s not forget how much uncertainty and fear we all were shrouded in when the pandemic hit. There was no playbook for how to protect people and businesses from a once-in-a-century pandemic with the potential to cause mass unemployment and poverty (in addition to death).
Policymakers were never going to get it exactly right: really, they were just trying to feel their way in a dark room without breaking too much furniture. Scarred by the timidity of the response to the 2008 financial crisis, which the U.S. took nearly a decade to fully recover from, they erred on the side of too much rather than too little stimulus. Arguably, that was the right call to prevent the most suffering with the limited information they had at the time, leading to the strongest labor market in half a century.
We should also remember that fiscal and monetary relief was one of the very few things that both Democrats and Republicans over the last two administrations agreed on. By the time Biden signed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan into law in March 2021, former President Trump had already approved a total of $3.1 trillion in pandemic-related economic stimulus. And Fed chair Jay Powell was originally nominated to his position by Donald Trump before he was re-appointed by Joe Biden, both times being confirmed in the Senate by a bipartisan vote. So if anything, the fault for overdoing it lies with both parties.
The good news is that inflation will come down, because none of these shocks are permanent in nature. Demand is stabilizing because households have already worked through most of their pandemic savings. Supply chains will become normalized, especially as more Chinese get vaccinated and China’s zero-Covid policy ebbs away over the coming year. Sanctions on Russia will remain for the foreseeable future, but the Europeans will diversify their energy supply sources and lessen their dependence on fossil fuels altogether. All of this means that inflation will prove temporary, even if not short-lived (no, they are not the same thing).
In the meantime, though, inflation poses at least as much of a political problem as it does an economic one. Just ask Jimmy Carter. Voters positively hate inflation and blame the president for it—regardless of what caused it, how long it lasts, or whether there’s anything he can do about it in the near term. They don’t care that there’s little the Fed can do to lower inflation without choking off the labor market (i.e., throwing people out of work), or that presidents have no control over gas and food prices.
source:j John Cole / The Scranton Times Tribune
President Biden can announce a gas tax holiday, lift tariffs on China, or enact new green energy subsidies to make life a little cheaper for the average American, but none of these measures are going to save him and Democrats from a sure defeat in November’s midterm elections.
The biggest danger is that this strong public aversion to inflation will pressure the Fed to induce a recession in order to tamp down inflationary expectations—as economists are now expecting—and leave the U.S. government with little fiscal firepower left to offset it. Given the widespread belief that the current inflation was fueled by excess spending, it’s unlikely that Congress would be able to find a politically palatable consensus on any significant relief policies, putting the U.S. economy at risk of a prolonged stagflation.
🔔 And if you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe to my free newsletter, GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer, to get new posts delivered to your inbox.
If the economy is so good, why does it seem so bad?
The US economy grew 5.7% in 2021, the biggest annual growth rate in decades, yet at the beginning of 2022, less than a third of Americans thought it was strong. As the world confronts the converging crises of the lingering pandemic and war in Ukraine, inflation and skyrocketing prices are further contributing to feelings of financial insecurity around the globe.
The latest episode of Living Beyond Borders, a special podcast series from GZERO brought to you by Citi Private Bank, takes a look at why there is still reason for optimism, and what we can expect from US and global markets over the next year. Moderated by Shari Friedman, managing director of climate and sustainability at Eurasia Group, the discussion features David Bailin, chief investment officer and global head of investments at Citi Global Wealth, and Robert Kahn, director of global macroeconomics at Eurasia Group.
Russia’s war in Ukraine hasn’t done the global economy any favors. It has exacerbated the pandemic’s supply chain issues, reducing inventories worldwide. That dip, says Bailin, “distorted the economy further, and with that, inflation took off,” reaching a 40-year high that cracked consumer confidence.
And then came the economic sanctions … which, Kahn says, will likely work to reduce “global activity by three-quarters of a percent to 1% this year.” While that’s not enough to signal a recession in the US, it does mean Europe may suffer in the short term from recession, he adds.
Bailin believes the supply of oil, agricultural products and commodities will improve and meet up with demand in the coming months, signaling to consumers that inflation is coming back down. “That is going to be a brighter moment for the economy.”
In the meantime, consumer negativity is likely to have political implications – everywhere from Brazil to France to the United States. While Emmanuel Macron is expected to win in the second round of the French presidential election on Sunday, far-right candidate Marine Le Pen has done better than expected, largely by resonating with voters concerned by the rising cost of living. In Brazil, meanwhile, a battle is taking shape that will likely have candidates from the “populous ends of the spectrum,” current President Jair Bolsonaro and former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, facing off, Kahn says. And in the US, concerns about the economy are expected to help deliver a win for Republicans in this autumn’s midterm elections.
Because inflation is seen as a localized experience, it puts pressure on politicians and central banks to change policies to address domestic fears. Europe’s 7.5% price growth in March, for example, is pressuring the European Central Bank to switch things up and raise rates, Kahn explains. But when policymakers react very strongly, that can act as a “drag on optimism about the economy on spending behavior.”
Both Bailin and Kahn worry that drastic policy changes could be detrimental. Today, family debts are down and savings are up in the US, which is “a sign of good policy,” says Bailin. But “if the Fed is too aggressive in its fight against inflation,” he says, it “could put the economy in jeopardy.” If it gets it right by raising rates reasonably, however, inflation starts to retract with an economic slowdown, evening out supply and demand.
To hear what Bailin and Kahn have to say about when the economy is likely to perk up, and how to approach the markets in the meantime, click here for the full discussion..
How economist Larry Summers predicted US inflation
Back in February, Larry Summers was sounding the alarm bell about inflation when no one was talking about it.
"It seemed obvious to me that we were gonna have massive demand, and we weren't gonna have such large supply."
So why didn't anyone listen to him? Summers says that "cognitive biases" led many to ignore the inflation warning signs because they thought struggling families needed help, or believed that inflation was simply gone for good.
Part of the reason prices are rising so much today, Summers says, is because the Biden administration made the political decision to do "too much stimulus," a big mistake in his view.
Watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: Inflation nation: What's driving US prices higher?
Subscribe to GZERO on YouTube to be the first to see new episodes of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: https://bit.ly/2TxCVnY
Podcast: Inflation nation: How Larry Summers predicted skyrocketing prices in the US
Listen: As the holiday shopping season gets underway, consumers are facing empty shelves and sky-high prices. What explains the supply chain crunch and how is it related to the highest levels of inflation in the US in 30 years? On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer is joined by economist Larry Summers, who served as the Treasury Secretary under President Clinton and as the Director of the National Economic Council under Barack Obama.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.- How long will COVID-fueled inflation last? - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: How human history is shaped by disaster, according to ... ›
- Podcast: A tale of two Koreas with veteran Korea journalist Jean Lee ... ›
- The Graphic Truth: US inflation just keeps on climbing - GZERO Media ›
- Think buying American will help ease inflation? Larry Summers says ... ›
- Biden could get Saudis to push Russia out of OPEC+ - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: US inflation skyrockets - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Making sense of global inflation, looming recession, & economists who disagree - GZERO Media ›
- Ask An Economist: How to lower inflation - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: US inflation slows a bit, but ... - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: US inflation slows a bit, but ... - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: No Empire lasts forever: How China’s rise could trigger a new world order - GZERO Media ›
- S3 Episode 3: Will there be a recession? - GZERO Media ›
- Larry Summers: Which jobs will AI replace? - GZERO Media ›
- The banking crisis, AI & Ukraine: Larry Summers weighs in - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Larry Summers breaks down the banking crisis - GZERO Media ›
- Larry Summers' view: What caused US inflation and how to slow it down - GZERO Media ›