저자: Yahoo Finance · 외국인
다듬은 글
welcome into the stream professor nuriel robini he is professor of economics at new york university stern school of business he is also the ceo of roubini macro associates llc we also welcome back julia laroche she is a correspondent here at yahoo finance she has actually invited dr roubini to join us so i'm going to throw it to you julia to lead off the question thank you so much adam and nouriel it's great to have you on as always a lot to unpack here uh you put out a piece ahead of the election it was pretty prescient so we'd love to kind of explore your views as to what's transpired here transpired here and what are the implications for the economy uh well it looks like it's going to be divided government with by then most likely winning the white house but the senate may remain republican unless those two runoff elections in early january in georgia would lead to a 50 50 in which case kamala harris could break the tie but i would say for now that doesn't look likely now in terms of the economy implies that of course the amount of fiscal stimulus is not going to be as large as the one that you would have had under a blue wave uh biden wanted over two trillion dollars of a stimulus plus another two trillion of spending on infrastructure and on a green new deal over the next four years so in the short run of course this week the stock market rallied because they believe that divided the government is good and why they believe it is the right the government is good because uh biden wanted to increase taxes corporate taxes from 21 to 28 close a bunch of loopholes especially on foreign profits of big tech and pharma raise taxes personal income on those that are wealthy about 400 000 and increase the capital gains tax so in the short run divided government implies that you have less fiscal stimulus and you don't have a tax increase however in my view the economy is weakening we've forgotten this week that we have 120 000 new cases of covet every day and in the case of europe my estimate is that with the rise of cases in europe europe is already going into a double deep recession in the fourth quarter and the first quarter of this year i think at this point with the new lockdowns you're seeing in europe we're gonna see a double deep recession in europe in the united states even if you don't have draconian lockdowns like those they're going to have in europe the endogenous behavior of the private sector when you have a rising covet cases means people are more risk averse more uncertain they spend less they save more they do less capacs they'll do less employment so we're going to see that while the third quarter look like a v-shape recovery 33 the fourth quarter is going to be barely two percent even less than that and that's analyzed means that within the quarter the growth is 0.5 when you're two percent analyzed so i think that actually the economy is to be weakening because you don't get enough of fiscal stimulus that you need and that could be bearing negatively on the market over time not in the short run but over time once we realize that we're having a v that becomes more like a u with a risk of a double d procession okay so a few things there it looks like um in your view well you could get less fiscal stimulus you also talked about the rise in covid cases in europe some of the economic data out of europe already starting to roll over and then of course the rising cases here in the u.s and um outlining your view of the economy of a double dip here um when we've talked several months ago we've talked about this kind of risk of a greater depression and i know you have brought up various um letters and i believe the last time it was a double dip recession was the risk that you saw noria when you look at that i guess you that would be the w shape does the the latter half of that could that be worse than the first dip we saw would like to kind of double click on that as well well you know the free fall that we had in the first quarter and the second quarter this year was massive because we had to shut down economic activity altogether in first in china then in europe then u.s and globally in order to flatten the curve and reduce the spreads of the virus uh then we had a very sharp recovery in the third quarter even if we have a slow down or even a double dip in my view we're not gonna have the free fall of economic activity we had in the first and the second quarter of this year but uh you know whether it's going to be a mediocre dynamic you with unemployment rate remaining high and massive defaults and bankruptcies or whether it's going to be something more severe like a double d procession the difference is relatively small meaning we're not going to have 30 growth anymore it was just a one-quarter event because after a free fall in this second quarter we had the recovery and the annualized rate they looked like 30 even if within the quarter was only seven percent but i expect me my baseline a mediocre anemic subpar below trend recovery that means that lots of people are gonna suffer let's not forget there are still over 10 million people that lost jobs in march and april who have not regained those jobs and once they're again jobs they're going to be part-time gig workers without full benefits low wages uh freelancers contractors the corporate site wants to have flexibility that means that these precarious jobs that will become the new norm leading to economic fragilities more uncertainty more income and wealth insecurity just going off of that i mean that's interesting what you're saying about the labor market because i think that was a lot of questions here going into what we just saw today i mean it was a better than expected report i was going through a number of analysts commentary saying that that the jobs picture is actually better and we're pacing better than what the fed was even expecting an employment rate level it sounds like you're pouring cold water on that though well you know the economy is improving we're creating jobs but the reality is that you still have first of all over 10 million unemployed people and if you use the u6 definition of unemployment rate that is the one that includes discouraged workers that have left the labor force or those who are working part-time but would like to work full-time that number is still 12 that is huge by any standard so is there an improvement in the economy yes is it really for those that have precarious jobs a good economy no and is there a risk that now without adequate fiscal stimulus and even the fed even jay paul says let's err on the side of more stimulus rather than less because at worst the economy recovers stronger sooner and that's fine but we're gonna have now a situation in which you're not gonna have a fiscal stimulus in the lame duck congress and once uh by uh trump realizes he's not gonna be president he has no incentive to give a trillion or two trillion dollar stimulus to buy them remember when obama came to power during a severe recession there was not a single republican who voted for that stimulus this time around they're probably gonna say we're not gonna help buy them let the economy rot because we're gonna have a chance in 2022.
so we'll have gridlock like the past we're not gonna have enough of a fiscal stimulus the economy's gonna weaken and that's gonna be something that eventually is gonna bear negatively on the market 3.7 million permanent job losses because of the pandemic that's the data today from bureau of labor statistics yesterday we heard this issue of a liquidity trap that interest rates are so low and savings are so much higher right now that what the fed is doing may not be working okay powell said no it's working what do you think well you know the fed has done his own share but even the fed believes that there are limits to what monetary policy can do and that the stimulus should be coming from fiscal policy because we're running out of bullets on the monetary and the monetary side more than stimulating the real economy is stimulating asset prices we're talking about the shape of the recovery whether it's a v or a u or a w it is certainly what most people call a k because those who have stable jobs white collar and their financial assets now have jobs they have income and their financial assets like the equity wealth is going up in value but suppose that you are permanently unemployed or you're underemployed or you're at risk of losing job you're also among the people that has almost no financial wealth just to give a number 85 of all equity wealth in the united states is held by the top 10 of households 51 of it is held by the top 1 of households the bottom 50 of households is almost zero equity wealth 0.5 and the top 60 billionaires in united states have more wealth than the bottom 50 of the population that is 160 million people so this is a k-shape recovery those were income and that assets are doing well those who are fragile and on their income and don't have jobs or have fragile jobs and don't have financial assets are in deep trouble we are a very divided society between haves and have nots between winners and losers and that's why there is so much social unrest nouriel i do want to kind of talk about markets for a second and also different asset classes one in particular that's getting a lot of attention lately uh bitcoin the price i'm looking at now it's above uh 15 378 for single bitcoin uh what is your view of the cryptocurrency and we're hearing a lot of folks who are pretty bullish on it these days well first of all have pointed out that cryptocurrency is a misnomer because for something to be a currency you have to be a uh unit of account nothing is priced in bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency you have to be a single numerator and with so many tokens you don't have a single numeral you have to be a scalable mean means of payment and with bitcoin you can make only five transactions per seconds with a visa network you can make 25 000 and you have to be a stable store of value that is not very volatile now based on the first few criteria uh bitcoin is not a currency it's maybe a partial store of value because unlike thousands of other what i call coins it cannot be so easily debased because there is at least an algorithm that decides how much the supply of bitcoin raises over time because for most of those other ones literally is done a dock and they're being debased faster than what the fed is doing so what's the future of this asset class in my view is not scalable is not secure is not decentralized it's not a currency and remember many central banks starting now with the chinese one the swedish but even the eurozone are starting to think about creating a central bank digital currency once you have a central bank digital currency every individual can use an account with the central bank to do payments so not only you don't need crypto you don't even need venmo you don't even need a bank account you don't even need the check and the big revolution we're gonna see in the next few years is gonna be central bank digital currencies they're gonna be crowding out digital payment systems that are in private sector starting with cryptocurrencies that are not really currencies nora i mean what you're saying now will have such broad implications it's kind of hard to wrap your head around that but i just want to bring the conversation back to what we're seeing in the markets play out today and what we've seen this week because i think the market's reaction to an uncertain election four days since every day since election day we still don't have an outcome or a better picture i think of who exactly is going to be in the white house but more broadly speaking i'm curious just to get your take on the fact that the polls are wrong once again i think trump's coalition provided to be much stronger than many had anticipated and that leads to the fact that the country is so divided i'm just curious just what kind of risk you think this might bring to the economy and what risk it could bring to the market here over the next couple of years well you know a week before the election i wrote a piece saying that the polls were most likely wrong that there be a narrow margin and that therefore there'll be a high contestation of this election and we'll see by the way how much uh trump is gonna accept the results as opposed to start first legal action and then court action and maybe even unleash his proud boys in the streets trying to create chaos so if that were to happen by the way i would expect that a severe risk of episode would occur if we're going in direction of civil unrest if not violence and i don't rule it out it's not my baseline but it's the one i'm not ruling out but i think the results of the election suggest that we are very very divided society and we're going to be in a situation which because of divided government we have gridlock i would rather have a political system where the winner has all the power and the party that wins for four years like parliamentarian systems in europe they can do what they want and if they do the right thing they get reelected and if they don't do the right thing they're booted out of power in the us we have the worst of all system because we have divided government we have a situation which needs 60 votes in the senate in order to pass anything unless you do to race conciliation and even if you win the white house then you cannot have your agenda that's what happened to trump when you had the majority in the house being democrat and that's what's likely to happen right now if biden wins and you're gonna have a majority in the senate being republican this kind of a gridlock doesn't make sense because whatever your views are if you're in power you have to do structural reforms you have to take policy actions in one direction or another and this gridlock is like kicking the can down the road running larger budget deficits not deciding to cut spending not deciding to raise taxes and we have huge deficits who are monetizing them and we're effectively in helicopter drop of money policies what people call mmt that eventually may lead to a rise in inflation if not stagflation so this gridlock in the short run the market rallies is excited about it but you think about it and in gridlock for another two years and what implies for the economy is not good for the economy and it's not going to be good for the market in my view so in 2021 you don't see a president biden and a senate leader mcconnell actually forging some kind of deal for some kind of stimulus greater than the 300 billion the republicans were proposing but less than the 2 trillion the democrats wanted well i i don't see it for the following reason if you're a republican and you just lost the white house what's your interest your interest is to make sure that the economy is weak that by then as a president cannot do anything but by executive orders that are going to be challenging the courts and then if the economy is weak two years from now in 2022 then the the back stops with the president and the republicans say look the economy was mediocre and don't vote for the democrats why would they want to give a two trillion dollar stimulus or even one and a half to the democrats it's gonna boost the economy it's gonna boost jobs and it's gonna make the democrats look good in 2022.
from a purely partisan point of view you want them to fail right that's what happened with obama when obama came to power there was not a single republican who voted for that stimulus in early 2009 in spite of the fact that we're in the deepest one of the recession during the global financial crisis i think we're so divided we're so partisan that i don't see the chances of bipartisanship emerging yes there will be a stimulus whether it's going to be 300 billion or 500 billion it doesn't matter it has to be well above a trillion to make a difference i don't see this republican going for it certainly not trump at this point being duck you know nouriel when you talk about the division and that we're seeing here play out within our own borders um i guess sometimes it could be we don't necessarily think beyond um what else is going on globally and i know you're someone who does look out into the global um landscape and you always usually come out uh with kind of your white swans i know that was something you wrote earlier this year the white swans taking place what is something happening beyond the u.s that we need to be paying attention to and if we are divided internally that could have some serious ramifications for our country well first of all we are on the verge of a process of uh what i call deglobalization everybody is going to become more protectionist there's going to be deglobalization there'll be decoupling within us and china will be a fragmentation of the global economy they'll be reshoring of investment from china and asia to high cost sources of production stuff that reduces potential growth and increases the cost of production it makes the risk of circulation rising the second thing i think is unfortunately we're at the beginning of a cold war between us and china that have a completely different economic political and social system and therefore that decoupling is starting first in technology then in trade then in financial flows then in investment then in data then in information then in mobility of scholar and students and so on and so on and it's gonna be a world that is divided in two one led by the u.s and the west and they won by china those are gonna be two different economic trading financial political and geopolitical system again that's not good for the global economy and things could get even worse between us and china the cold war could become colder and some people even worry about a situation where maybe even a military conflict down the line could be the kind of a extreme tail event that might materialize on taiwan or on the south china sea so there's plenty of other stuff of course that can go wrong there globally nouriel roubini we really appreciate you taking the time we love your honesty we love what you had to say we look forward to having you back on the program soon thanks so much for taking the time thanks for having me pleasure
Comments 0