65. Därför har världsekonomin överlevt Trump

Donald Trump has led a policy that has brought the world's economy to the brink. But the world economy seems to sound like a world economic outlook. Does politics play a role? Or has the growth become a self-playing piano? You are listening to Wärtsjökonomi. Wärtsjökonomi is not a machine, but you could still think that it would work a little like a machine. You notice that if you pull a big spike, you would get a big reaction in the other end, but that's not what we've seen this year. No, if we're going to build on that metaphor, it depends on how big a spike you've pulled in, but also when you expect the machine to start cracking. It would be a huge mess in the world economy. Yes, it could be. So it might be a little early to make the decision that nothing has happened to the people in the White House and the American administration. I believe that for many ordinary people, you have experienced, and I think I've experienced it myself, that these enormous words from economists, judges, and commentators in our country, that this was the end of Wärtsjökonomi, and that it would be a chaos and catastrophe for these thugs and to have a president in the world's largest economy that does things that go so much against the economic schoolbook. They say, "Alex, there's not much going on, and it's hard to get along." Yes, but we also have to remember that things have happened first, very dramatically, you pulled in, then you didn't pull back the spikes a little bit. So it's not unambiguously, if you pull back the band or pull back the band until the thugs were the highest, 130 percent, no, 145 percent were against China, who were the highest. Then we would have seen another development, so then things have been reversed, partly because China pulled back, and they found a way to reduce it. But of course, there are still high thugs, and most of the calculations are that the American thugs will be significantly higher, even if it has been the end of the World War, during the transition period, and that is a big change. But there are some things that have not yet been met, along with what makes it possible to say that the conditions are not as small as they could be. And one thing is that other countries have not pulled back, in large numbers, China did it, but they have at least found a sufficient weaponry there, and in Europe, for example, they have not pulled back anything, in principle. And what you could be afraid of in such a development is that the US has higher thugs, other countries have higher thugs, they are contrary degrees, the US has higher, the more you get such a negative or unspiral, which would be able to reduce World War II in a way that we have not seen, but it is also because the spiral has been avoided. I think directly on Brexit people will be afraid, actually, because I was reported when I lived in England, as you know, and you remember these scenarios, and it was almost this picture of that if Great Britain was to stay in the EU, the thugs in London's financial district would fall together on our heads, and the drug statutes that guard the financial district, on the other hand, just fly away and leave London with all the banks, and it would be a total unimaginable market reaction, it was a market reaction, unexpectedly. But the experience was still that it was not so dangerous, even if it was in many ways, because it has been a growth point, but similarly to Great Britain. Exactly, but it is a great comparison, because Brexit, I would say, has damaged the British economy, but not really like the short term that you could escape, even if it was for several years of weak investments, because you did not know the plan, it took a number of years to change the outcome. It is not possible to make conclusions that I think Brexit has been neutral for the British economy, and it can be the same conclusions we have taken in the last few years, the American thugs, that there were effects, perhaps even in line with what you would expect, but they were more challenging. Now we are here a few weeks later, and we want to find the exact significance for one of the others, and it might be that we are a little too angry about that. No, absolutely, and when it comes to Brexit effects, it is also very difficult to calculate, because there will be a direct situation when Great Britain leaves the EU, or two months later there will be a big pandemic, so it is very difficult to distinguish the one effect from the other, and that can be talked about politically, which they do. Yes, but in any case, Great Britain has a greater problem with inflation than countries on the other side of the channel, and there are probably several reasons for that, but it is difficult to say that it is not something to do with less labor. So it could be that if the economy is divided into a machine that you have in large numbers, do you think something will happen directly, and then you think, "Oh, but no, then you can drink a little tea." And then you drink, but half an hour later, it is pang! Absolutely, as you usually describe among central banks as oil tankers, when they are going to turn, it takes time before they can get an effect on the economy. And then you can think that economic policy, or the other leg of economic policy, France policy, or at least trade policy, in the same way also is, if you do not do what you did during that period of 145%, then you basically get the opposite stop, but otherwise it takes time before trade patterns are changed, and what we see when the effects of tullars are, is that they become more exposed in the long run than what you could expect. I think that the calculations that were made at the beginning were that, "Okay, this will drive American consumer prices." So much, then you count in the economy, how much increase in imported goods, given that the importer sends the entire cost, how much is that of the American consumer college, and so on. So you are in the accounting department, and then you come up to a sum. In fact, it has been shown that the cost that is paid separately by the importer, it is thrown out, which I mean that even with the exporter you can pay a part. You are a Swedish exporter, you sell to an American importer, it is not completely easy to get rid of the things, because then suddenly something else happens, you have to find a new buyer. You may do that, and then you may take the price you want, but because you are not sitting with unsold goods, that is how you want to lower the price. So the whole effect has, of course, not materialized. It is difficult to think or believe that exporters who export to the USA can agree with a lower price than you do to other areas in the world. Then you will, of course, switch your perspective. So much exaggerated effects, there are many metaphors for this economic policy, when oil tankers take a long time to turn. But when it comes to penning policy, you sometimes talk about that it works as a British shower, in the sense that you screw on heat, and screw on heat, and screw on heat, but it is very frustrated, and it gets cold water, and it gets cold water, and then all of a sudden, the hot water comes at once. And then you screw it in a different way and you want to get a cold shower, but then it is very hot, and yes, it is frustrated. But both the shower in Storbritannien and to account for this type of effects. Yes, and then we will remember that the USA is the world's largest economy, and it is very important that it is the perspective of the largest consumers and so on. But they are quite domestic, that is to say, it is not a completely central actor in all the scenes. And if we look at Swedish exports, it is important when it comes to sales in the USA, but not as important as for the EU, for the rest of the EU. So even if it hacks there, I don't think anyone would say that it would no longer lead to a global trade war, there would still be effects that would be less dramatic than the worst case we have also discussed. But can you say that Trump had the right to say that he has done this because he wanted to do that, he has not crashed his own economy, and the American economy is quite good than then? I would say to make it out. To make it out. Because it is very early to have the conclusion. What you can say is that even so long, there have been minor effects on the financial markets, on the economy, on the inflation. It has given full cover to the state finances, it has been improved a little, but this is nothing that will lead to that the Bundeskottet disappears, and they do not count on that. What Trump has also brought in all the time is that it should create American jobs. That is what you do not think. So the piece that is quite big in the narrative, it is missing completely. The main part of the puzzle piece is the political narrative in many ways. Yes, that it should industrialize the US, and there I do not think you can see any effects at all. These are the Bruce Springsteen jobs that we usually call them. Manly factory jobs that will come back, and you will start to affect things again in the US. But the reason why we have this discussion right now is that World Economic Outlook will come from IMF, the value of the fund that held its annual meeting this week. Anrik, institution from 1944, who will promote global economic cooperation. Is there much left? Yes, but it is also under loop, you can say. Not least, the fact that it is financed is not insignificant, but part of the US. The US is still a member, but when we will see next week. They press the organization. Yes, but it is someone who keeps the fund high, still, when it comes to international cooperation. But their World Economic Outlook will come, and that shows the global growth from 3.3% 2024 to 3.2% 2025, and then 3.1% 2026. So this is exactly what happens, it doesn't happen that much. It's like it's rolling on, it's going down a little bit. But you have in huge gaps, for example, they may have a lag effect, and maybe they are not as big as we got the impression that they would be in ours. But you have done quite a lot, and it doesn't really happen that much in the other end. No, but it is so that economic policy in all areas, but it is not what is usually what controls the development. But I want to talk about that. We talk a lot, you and I, about economic policy. This is something that a lot of people think about. This is things that a lot of economists are researching. This is something that you have a lot of positions in the finance department and in various central banks to think about and do better. And then you sit and say that it may play a role. This is a self-sustaining piano. Yes, in many ways, it is actually, it is... After all, the question is whether it is connected by economic policy, but as long as you don't fully run the dike, and that is what you do in a merger market between rooms, or in some countries, in various countries. So you can see that economic policy can play a huge role and crush economies. But as long as you are involved in some kind of limit of profitability, you can discuss whether it has happened when it comes to some American policy. But this far the economy is saying that it does not have it. But then there are other forces that are much more important. When I was a child, I started this industry. You were a child and the dinosaurs walked forward in Stockholm's inner city. Exactly, then you thought that the other leg of economic policy and finance policy was completely uninteresting for all the developed countries, at least. It was only the economic policy that played a role. So there was a very small difference between the different governments on different sides of the block. So the idea of the merger market has become more important, because it played a role in the market earlier. And now it actually has an effect. But if that is the case, you can quickly think that... The idea is that central banks, or the contribution that we have been used to, that central banks shoot. They cannot do that. They try to control the economy in a short term, so that they do not have low or high inflation, or for that part of the right or low labor society. Economic policy, the other leg of finance policy, should be aimed at the long term. Create conditions for growth, and then you are aware of how you influence the delivery side. So we create better conditions for production. We usually talk about education in some way. Yes, but those who Donald Trump gives himself to at the American University, that should be bad from that perspective. Yes, if you think about the creation of... What is it called? The mill for economic growth over time. Well, then this is with overtime, which you have to keep. Then it's lagging again. Then it's really... It can be 10, 20, 30 years. So you can't expect that to be seen now, because it's not like the universities are creating growth now, they are creating innovation over a long time. Yes, because it's not just us who have become self-critical about this, but not just the recent World Economic Outlook, but in general, the economic development has, for example, given the not-so-well-known "Odmyuk" publication, the economist to address this question. Here we are, seven months on nearly. The US economy hasn't crashed, were you wrong? So I don't think so, Anna. The Economist, a publication that has written articles in history about that the Belgian should be dissolved as a country. There is no "Odmyuk", no "Odmyuk" magazine that denies saying what they think, from the fact that they think they have authority, and all the time, or at least often, have the right to do so. The question is now if they were wrong about Tullar, except that they were some of those who warned for huge catastrophic effects, and now it hasn't really been like that. And what do they say? Should they put up a part of the things we've already been into? Yes, they've put up a part of the things we've already been into. But above all, Tullar is actually lower than what they were in April. And that he simply, with him, means Donald Trump has backed up in quite a high degree. And that they, for that reason, surprise, surprise, didn't have the wrong Tullar. But I think that, even if you start in the spring, when we count on different risk scenarios, it was just that the security channel was important. So how long is the question mark? But also, the spread effect leads to a non-spirited Tullar being upheld. If you were to know the Tullar and be sure they're still there, then you can also count quite mechanically on just what it will be for price effects, at the end, for importers, and then wondering if that would reduce sales, and so on. Then you wouldn't have come forward to huge effects. And that's often the case in crisis. That the confident channel is so important. If there's a lack of security that drives the lack of security, as it is often shown, you can say that in all crises, we know that, until the end of the year, it will be good. But that's not how we act. But now I'm not, why is that relevant here? If you think about the Tullar, the Tullar crash, you know that it will come back sometime. Yes, exactly. But that's quite meaningful. But if it's the lack of security, then you wouldn't have known exactly. Okay, there will be Tullar, but no one will come back, or be very careful. Then the assumption was that no one would have been in the house, or perhaps the most successful risk scenario, but a risk scenario, if you were to be, "Okay, make the USA like this, then you have to go back to the country." That's what you're talking about. I think we have been surprised by how deep the EU has been, for example. And you could say that it is a rational EU, because the EU has more to lose on it. The German car industry. Yes, exactly. But the question is how the EU will lose, as a businessman or businessman in the future. You know that the EU will just lay down. So you can do whatever you want with them. So it's hard to know, but I think that the opinions that the countries would fall in the way they've done, I don't think they're the last ones to die. So the freedom of action instinct is more focused on the rest of the world, than you thought, when you formulated this type of risk scenario for about six months. If I'm not mistaken, it was 2007 when the economy was in a ledger. I think that the EU should be free, because the EU has finally filled a role in European politics. That's what you can also think. A parenthesis. I don't have a comment on that. You don't have a comment on that. I just want to say that one of the most expensive articles that anyone has ever written, we're not just going to talk about the country's economic policy, we're going to talk about their existence. Exactly. It's very nice that you were in the 1830s, not from politics then, but not further. How is that? Isn't it then that they were the worst? Yes, it was then that they stood as the existing form. Exactly. IMF, do you want to talk about colonialism? We hope for that today. We're moving on instead. Now you continue to be fair to the Belgians. No. We continue to talk about IMF's World Economic Outlook, and they're moving forward to continue to play this piano. The first thing is what you've mentioned, and what the economy has also said, that Tullan is less than expected. The second thing is that the private sector and the households have adapted, I think, more than you could believe. Do you agree with that? In that case, it depends on what you remember. If you remember, you saw a pretty big increase in the hand in front of Tullan. That's what they're talking about. Then it's just an additional thing. It's something you've compared here in the short term, but we'll see the effect next year. Absolutely, we saw it in some countries in Europe, for example, that the export went up towards the USA, and it has made the growth stronger during the first half of the year, and then it's broken in, so it's a different kind of conjecture. And then they also added, in this point, that they've been able to absorb some of the Tull costs without sending it to the consumers, and that they've also found other ways to deal with it. We've seen a huge difference between the hand with Asia and the USA, where China has gone down dramatically, and partly, it's a third-party effect, that certain tullars are avoided by exporting from other countries in Asia. But China has also successfully contributed by increasing its export to other countries. Real export, for example, to the EU. Which EU are you talking about? If you're a consumer, you might think it's nice to get Chinese products that press prices, but if you're competitive, it's harder. The third point they've raised is that the financial markets have already run on a self-taught piano, and that this has a lot to do with that we're not only going through a very big geopolitical change, that the USA is back from its earlier role in the world, and that you're breaking into a kind of free-range tradition that you've had for a few decades, but also that we're going through this technological change with AI. And that this is going to happen at the same time. It actually helps a part here, because it's... Börsen is going up because of tech-axes, among other things. Do you remember when we talked about deep-sync in the beginning of the year? Yes, that's right. It was around the same time as Tullo Ron was kicking in, and then we had... The chemical challenge. Yes, we had a little bit of a perfect storm for the American action market, because then there were Tullar, which was the capital and effect of the American economy, which was the big driving force, the engine of Börsen NVIDIA, which was suddenly asked to be set. And then we saw quite large financial effects. Now you have Tullar, but not at that level, which you expected to be able to handle. And then AI boom continues, in unadulterated forces, you could say. And that's also to call on the water. It's not just that sector that seems to create potential, it creates large portfolio effects that divide other action markets. So I think you also have to put into this equation that it's not everything else the same, but it has been a strong driving force beyond what you're doing with politics. And then you might also underestimate it. And then they talked about something that I've heard a lot in the IMF film, "Improved Policy Fundamentals". So that's, as I've mentioned, another word for developing countries and emerging markets in the high-level, does what the international value fund thinks they're going to do, take into account and drive responsible financial policies and so on. And that's good for the world, I think. So it's a good reward for policymakers? Good reward, exactly. Even if you then ask how politics plays a role in the leading role. Well, it's easier to destroy, as if you had to force children to do it. It's easier to destroy children's children when you're doing it well. That's the way it is for everyone. It can look pretty fast. But it's the same with policy. There's no problem with destroying economies if you have to pull back as much as you want. Exactly, exactly. Then they raised the risk for the world's richest countries, which are always small businesses that can have big effects. And this can get big and a lot of bad effects. But the last thing we're going to move on to is this. Should we talk about this as a self-playing platform and that politics doesn't play a role? Or should we talk about this as those who should react, for example the obligation market, have lost their interest? I think that the loss of interest is actually a wrong expression because it doesn't really work that way with the financial market. But let me explain what I mean even if it's a bad metaphor. In the market, if you do things that are hitting the market, even if it's a reaction that starts to come with a bet, there's an idea that the market should be there to correct and help the people to react and so on. We saw that in April. There's a soul that the bulls are lower than they thought. And a big part of that soul was that we actually had a big reaction to the obligation market. And then it ended? Yes, absolutely. So the obligation market or the financial policy has always been in a path that is not sustainable over time in many countries. So an understatement that continues to grow may not get any bigger. You have a social protection system or pension system that is not financed. If you have a demographic resistance, a slower growing population, reduced labor force, and so on. So it's going to be a pretty negative scenario. They're still a bit away and that's something that the market has difficult to appreciate. Maybe it shouldn't appreciate because there are things that can affect it. And if you're the most enthusiastic about the AI boom, you can say that that's the solution. The productivity will come down. There won't be any problems to finance that. Which economy is going to twist if it's going to do so? It can't be 100% safe. And then you want to say that the market is going to do its job, then you want to know that this is inevitable and that's pretty soon. Then you can say that it's going to appreciate it. But it's not something that is still maybe five or ten years away before it's really a problem. The pain is coming, European Central Bank's CEO Christine Lagarde here about Dan. She said that it's small marginals for many of these companies. And now you can absorb the numbers, but there is a time limit for how long you can do it. And then you need to do this on the consumers through the higher prices. And then the effect will be in the machine. Yes, and then it's done. It's done, but it's going to be something that is still going on. I don't know if the listeners are thinking about the financial crisis or some kind of hack or pandemic when there is just a crash in economic activity. It's not like that that happens, it's something that makes the machine hack sooner, it doesn't go as fast. It's like it's out of the clip. Which in itself is a good description of the British economy after Brexit. Really? Now we move on. We have talked about that it is a self-playing piano at the right level, at least right now. A piano that can come to an end playing as early as possible, because there is a lag in the machine. So we have been quite positive, which also has international value the fund that has been in World Economic Outlook. The weekly list three signs that it will still go to the forest. I have read that the sign in time shows that it will go super bad. Place number three. The water has become a starting class. Have you noticed that? It's really water now. I have to get more information. You have to get more information. Wall Street Journal writes "Restaurants have started selling water as a culinary experience." A big article. A new Urcus group "Wattensommelier" Here we are worried that there will be a lot of work with AI and there will be nice new jobs like "Wattensommelier". A Michelin restaurant "Restaurant Restaurant" "Lapopot" in "Mackelsvild i Kessher" has also launched the world's first menu with only water. You can order a water that comes from Portugal and is called Palace of Vidalgo and costs 19 points for a bottle. Yes, but it's a innovation force. It's not innovation power. You can sell water for 19 points. No, because it's not innovation. When too much capital Financial innovation. When too much capital is used to get ideas then you find out that water is not a new idea class. It's not even an idea. It's not even an idea. But you take something that already exists and make it some kind of premium category of it. It's definitely not innovation. Up to the consumer, I think. Up to the consumer. I mean, this is a sign that it will go wrong. Yes, it's a bubble sign. Yes, a bubble sign. Water bubble. Place number 2, 3. The sign that it will certainly go to the forest regardless of what the IMF says. Hylp of the "tecbolag" diversifies into pornography. I open the medallid this week to verify that the adults will get access to a version that contains erotic. That's what they call it. It's not a definition question. In general, without saying anything about open AI, when a company starts to go into things such as porn, drugs or gambling, then it usually is a sign that we are late in the bubble sign. It has been a part of the question mark about financing AI services. If you think that the technology will really solve the productivity problem in the whole world and take us into this era of new growth that AI-profesies promise us. If that's what you think when you sit in the open AI, then you really launched a porn service. And that's also because they already have competitors so I don't know how much it's about or if it's about the other one. It feels like a bad sign that they even think about this. This usually is a desperation that you usually try to market as innovation and it usually is a bubble sign. Place number one. The week's list. Three signs that it will definitely go to the forest. We have decided to take care of the undercarriage. As all heterosexual men hopefully know about this team, we have decided to take care of the undercarriage and it will be quiet and likeable and a little mild. That doesn't matter. The silence is what signals the father and the same thing applies to city obligations. It's quite quiet about this. What I mean is a bad sign. Frank got his credit card, graded again this week from S&P. Yes, but then? When you set up the pension reform, it went to two points. You don't mean it's sad at all? No, it's really small. I think it would be a bigger reaction. Absolutely. The sign language sign language? Sign language sign language. That's hard. I think it should be a bigger, because sometimes you don't react to credit cards, but in this case it should be... Credit cards don't usually be drawn into the market. In the case of Frank, there are quite a lot of steps in credit cards already in the spread. In how the situation is. So it's not so strange. But then you can think that now you have a government that has made a false assumption. But at the expense of the economic policy, it's a slower approach to balance. And that's what you find with it. So you could think that it would have been a different reaction. Silence is dangerous. In the US, the percentage of BNP is up to 99.9%, so it doesn't go down. David Kelly from J.P. Morgan warned today that "Yes, America is trying to go bankrupt." But it happens slowly, so the market is not panicking. Silence is what you should worry about. Absolutely. It keeps going, that's how you go bankrupt. That's what I'm talking about. Slowly, then suddenly. But all of a sudden, it doesn't come now. No, you don't think it will come now. Silence is dangerous and technical. We know that when it comes to underskott and obligation markets, the vibe changes from modern monetary theory in the German Republic quite quickly. And that's the whole thing. So, what do you say at the end, Claes, self-playing piano or do you buy my signs that it will definitely go to the forest? Water, porr and big underskott. I'm not sure that they just signaled that it's here now. Some of you may see that there will be a next crisis, but is that enough? We'll start at the end of this episode. We also want to give you some tips. We have a sister pod called "Börschsürr" in her last episode. They talked about that we are currently Dallas. You can look at both. You shouldn't be ashamed because you also look at Dallas. "Börschsürr" is a special pod that is more about action than this pod. We've also got a lot of fun and exciting viewers. Questions at the end, both about gold and Eurocrisis, and we're very grateful for trying to answer as well as I can. We'll continue as a self-playing piano next week, but this episode is now over and you've listened to "Vertsekonen".