And now for something completely different!
But it's not from Monty Python. Instead, it's from The Economist, about how things went this past year and how much a crisis they think it really has been. Standard disclaimers apply:
A YEAR OF SURPRISES
From The Economist print edition 12/19/2002
The past year, believe it or not, was surprisingly good. How about 2003?
__________________________________________________ ____
WITH gifts, as with most sources of pleasure or pain, how we feel about them
depends on what we were expecting. So it is in economics and politics. The
past year has been full of dark shadows and gloomy moods, of fears of what
might soon transpire.
What is surely striking though, is how good things have been, not how bad.
For 2002 has been a surprisingly good year. That even augurs well for 2003.
Certainly, there have been plenty of reasons for gloom. International terror
marched murderously on, in Bali, Mombasa and elsewhere, and in a Moscow
theatre became entangled with Russia's domestic battle over Chechnya. The
conflict between Palestinians and Israelis was as deadly as ever.
North Korea admitted that it has a secret uranium-enrichment programme,
flouting the terms of its 1994 deal with America and its neighbours. Saddam
Hussein denied that he has any programmes to develop weapons of mass
destruction, making a war with the West look likelier.
Meanwhile, the world economy grew rather sluggishly, if slightly less so than
in 2001. In many countries, unemployment rose. Many stockmarkets had their
third successive year of decline. Argentina, once the darling of “emerging”
markets, collapsed and defaulted on its debts.
And, mainly though not only in America, scandal after scandal showed that
corporate accounts had been fiddled and that bosses and investment banks had
taken greed and the abuse of power to new heights.
How, though, did this bad tale compare with what was expected? It was
reasonable, and common, to expect a very bad year economically and a
dangerous one politically. Relative to that, things have actually turned out
quite well.
In our Christmas issue for 2001, our panel of economic forecasters were
saying that the United States would grow by just 0.6% in 2002, the euro area
would grow by 1.0% and Japan's economy would shrink by 0.8%. Figures for the
full year are not yet in, but now the panel expects America to have turned in
growth for 2002 of a surprisingly lusty 2.4%. Japan's economy is expected to
have shrunk by just 0.5% and only the euro area has been worse than expected,
with growth forecast to have been 0.7%.
Britain is almost bang on the forecast, at 1.6% (versus 1.7%). Australia
(3.6%) and Canada (3.4%) have done much better than the panel thought. And,
on our emerging markets page, 17 of the countries listed have growth rates
that are higher now than a year ago, and only seven have fared worse. That,
remember, is despite Argentina's collapse.
Things have looked a lot bleaker to investors, with the world stockmarket
index down by a fifth since December 31st 2001, and nearly half its record
high. Yet the mismatch between financial markets and economies is one of the
most pleasant surprises. In recent years, stockmarkets have suffered one of
their biggest falls in history. Normally, when such crashes occur, they bring
about widespread collateral damage in the economy because banks collapse and
lending contracts.
The great surprise of the crash of 2001-02 has been that this has not
happened. Insurance companies, pension funds and individual investors have
taken big losses, but banks have so far proven more resilient than in the
past. Measured against profits, many stockmarkets still look dear by
historical standards. Given the pressure to clean up accounts, and plausible
fears of a widespread backlash against capitalism and its scandals, they too
have been surprisingly resilient.
And world politics? This time last year, India and Pakistan looked on the
brink of war, even of nuclear war, a conflict that no longer looks likely.
Despite America's patient and determined conduct in Afghanistan, a chorus of
critics throughout 2002 denounced its adventurism, its bossiness, its
recklessness, its destabilising behaviour.
Such critics ought by now to feel pleasantly surprised. In military terms,
the world's superpower has been notable by its inaction, not its action. Far
from lashing out unilaterally against Saddam Hussein (or anyone else), it
chose to work through the United Nations and won an extraordinary unanimous
resolution in the Security Council as its reward.
As for terror, al-Qaeda still exists, but its operations have been disrupted;
and (fingers crossed) there have been no successful acts of mega-terrorism to
match September 11th. That is a small mercy, but a mercy even so.
A WORLD GETTING BRIGHTER. Risks galore can be cited for 2003. A war against
Iraq looks probable, and it could send oil prices soaring, destabilise the
Middle East and encourage terrorism. High debt levels among American
companies and consumers could restrain investment and cramp demand. House
prices could collapse in all sorts of places.
Japan might again fail to reform its economy, and so might Germany. North
Korea's unpredictable dictator, Kim Jong-Il, could, well, act unpredictably.
As we enter the new year, though, things actually look better than those
risks imply. Wars can always go wrong, but with United Nations support, and
hence acquiescence from the Arab neighbours, the one against Saddam is
overwhelmingly likely to be short (eg, a couple of months) and successful.
Oil prices may jump when it starts, but are likely to fall (perhaps sharply)
once it is over.
Debt is likely to mean that America (and thus its trading partners) does not
grow as fast as in the late 1990s, but it could well exceed this year's
figure, even so. Europe might not recover rapidly, but reforms now being
discussed for its single currency promise to make monetary policy more
accommodating to growth, and could even allow fiscal policy to offer more
assistance.
Overall, the world economy looks like growing faster than in 2002, and should
disappoint only those who dream of new booms.
Even so, two big tasks deserve a mention. The first is that of pushing Israel
and Palestine back to the negotiating table; it will be made easier by a
successful war in Iraq, but also much more important.
The second is that of building on the useful start made in 2002 of reviving
overseas aid to poor countries, but doing so much more generously with regard
to three of today's great scourges of the poor, AIDS, malaria and
tuberculosis. A really determined effort to deal with those diseases would be
the most pleasing surprise of 2003.
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."
Originally Posted by cbailey
