저자: NourielRoubini · 외국인
요약 보기
트럼프 당선으로 정책 방향이 갈림: 감세·규제완화·화석연료 확대는 성장·물가 안정에 긍정적이나, 관세·이민 제한·재정적자 확대·Fed 독립성 침해는 스태그플레이션 위험. 재정적자 확대 시 채권금리 상승과 채권 자경단(bond vigilantes)에 의한 정책 제동 가능성. 시장은 아직 wait-and-see이며 주가는 상승 중이나 약 5% 조정 가능성 언급. 이민 제한은 노동공급 감소·임금 상승으로 인플레이션 요인. 중국은 구조적 소비 부진으로 약한 위치이며 사회안전망 확충 없이는 소비 전환 어려움. 중동에서는 트럼프 행정부하 이스라엘·미국의 대이란 공격 가능성 증가, 다만 억지 효과로 긴장 완화 가능성도 있음.
다듬은 글
[CC may contain inaccuracies] So just a couple of months ago, Professor, you were sounding relatively perhaps relative. You know, Dr. Doom optimistic about the global economy and the U.S. economy. You did say that a Trump election victory would change that. How do you feel about that thesis now? Certainly the election of Trump is going to make big economic policy differences.
The question, what's going to be the impact on growth and inflation? Some of his policies are going to keep growth strong and keep inflation low. He's pro-business. He wants to deregulate the economy. The reduction of tax rates for the corporate sector is going to be good for private business confidence, and moving towards more production of fossil fuels is going to reduce maybe energy prices in the United States.
Those sets of policy would imply good growth and inflation under control. On the other side, during the campaign, he said the 10 to 20% tariffs on all inputs in US up to 60% on those from China try and maybe to weaken the value of the dollar. Draconian restrictions on migration, if not mass deportation, tax cuts that may be unfunded, then increase the budget deficits and potentially interfering even with the independence of the Fed.
If they were to follow those latter types of stagflation policies. Inflation will be higher, growth will be lower, bond yields be higher because there is more inflation and more real rates with unsustainable deficits. That's going to crowd out economic growth and bond yields. About 5% would imply a correction of stock prices and negative impacts on the economy.
So the question is whether he's going to be more moderate or more radical in his policies. And it's a combination that we need to sort of unpack from fiscal to immigration to trade to geopolitics. But I wanted to start off with the fiscal. What sort of time frame would you be looking at in terms of the transmission to that to potentially that stagflation or at least, you know, pretty reflationary impact?
And how does that play out for the Fed? Well, it's clear he wants to make the tax cuts of 2017 permanent. Plus he made other promises during the campaign and would imply that you'll have another almost ten, $8 trillion of debt or deficit over the next decade. If those things were to happen, I think the market disciplines are going to be quite quick and bond yields have been already going higher before Trump was elected in expectation of his election.
There weren't even a high rate after his election, though, and a slightly lower two just because the Fed said, okay, we're going to cut rates, I'm going to wait and see. But if a certain sets of policies, starting with a fiscal are implemented, then imply hiring inflation and overheating of the economy.
The Fed will have to cut less, maybe eventually stop sooner. And in a scenario in which actually other policies are stagflation, or admitting to our inflation, whether as currency or tariff or migration restriction, then the Fed could even decide to raise rates. And then the Fed and Trump will be on a collision course.
I would say, however, is that he cares about market discipline. And if bond yields go higher and the stock market correct, that's a bond. Vigilantes in markets saying your policies are unsustainable. And if he chooses the right economic advisors, they've got no warning against policies that eventually have such a market impact and may lead to policies are more moderate rather than radically populist in the first place.
And you have been critical of higher equity prices and what markets are doing at the moment, which is quite a great deal of exuberance. Right. Do you worry when you take a look at what market participants are not pricing in perhaps in terms of the downside? Well, the market has gone even higher after his election because his policies look like they are leading to greater growth reflationary trades and overall probably as nice a private sector problem and a lot of other things that are good for the private sector.
I think that markets are still in a wait and see mode to figure out whether the policies are going to be hurting the economy, whether it's tariff currency, migration restriction, interfering with the Fed, having unsustainable budget that are going to be implemented. Maybe the markets believe that the market discipline is going to discipline them in advance, knowing that policies are not sustainable, are going to lead to bond market vigilantes and the stock market punishing him.
So the market is optimistic that those things are going to restrain him ex-ante as opposed to exposed. And that's why the markets are rallying. On the immigration piece, he's stuck pretty close to messaging about the threat of mass deportations. We know that that's going to change pricing dynamics when it comes to things like agriculture, for example.
But how does it potentially change the whole dynamic and momentum behind America's labor force? Well, migration in the last four years has actually capped economic growth. Strong increase in the labor supply and a lid on wage growth. About 2.5 million people documented or otherwise entering the United States.
If we were to have mass deportation or shut down completely that border, there would be a significantly reduction in the supply of labor. In an economy where aging implies the labor supply is growing mostly through migrants. That implies a negative economic shock, not just on agriculture. Agricultural.
The construction sector depends on migrant workers, and therefore those impacts will be overall inflationary, less labor supply, more of a wage increases. So the question is whether this policy will implement or not. Do you think China is better prepared this time for more hawkish trade policy, or do you think they're actually in a weaker position and given the struggles of the domestic economy?
I think they're in a weaker position because potential growth has fallen and by the end of the decade could be as low as 3%. China's dealing with issues that are structural rather than cyclical, and their growth model has been doubling down on a model where you want to increase the supply now of advanced technology goods and services.
But there is not enough domestic demand, especially consumption. So the model has been we are going to dump on the rest of the world of this excess supply. Now, even if Harris had been elected, that was not a policy that would be sustainable. And we Trump is going to be even less so because are going to, for sure slap tariff against China.
So maybe the Trump threat or shock is going to force China to do the kind of domestic reform our need that we have more consumption and less export. But I'm not sure that that's going to happen any time soon. The point that you make about China's slowdown being a structural one, you know, many decades in the making when it comes to things like the property sector market, seem to ignore that some of the time.
So what is the fix there? Can more fiscal just fix that? Well, it depends which kind of fiscal, you know, fiscal policy of just backstopping local government. You're not increasing consumption to give a tax incentive to buy a car this year. You're still in demand from next year. China needs to have a much broader social safety net.
Cost savings of household is high, consumption is low because you have to save for health care, for old age, for if you get unemployed, if you are a migrant worker, you don't have access to resources. And the share of income goes to capital is high. The one going to labor is low, and therefore you have structural reduction in consumption rates.
So you need to do stuff like creating a wide and broad social safety net. But China doesn't seem to be in favor of it, and it's fiscally costly as well. And those are the kind of more structural reforms needed to increase domestic consumption and rely less on export. So far, those things have not occurred.
I don't think they're going to likely to occur unless there is a major shock coming from Trump tariffs. Before I let you go, I wanted to end on the Middle East. You've written about the risk still existing for Israel to strike high risk, high value assets in Iran. Do you think that risk has increased with the Trump administration in coming on one side?
There's an increase in the sense that Trump before the election said to Netanyahu, If you want to go and strike the nuclear facilities of Iran, please do so. While Biden and Harris are saying be careful and under the Trump administration, probably you'll be more aggressive both Israel and the U.S. against Iran.
On the other side, Iran realizes that at this point they are at risk of being really attacked not just by Israel, but also the U.S. They might lead to a deterrence. They might actually moderate their policy rather than doubling down on attacking Israel. If that type of deterrence occurs, maybe there could be a de-escalation, rather an escalation.
Comments 0