I have been in the forecasting business for more than 50 years. Over that period, I have heard the constant refrain that the world is in the midst of “unprecedented changes.” This popular trope frequently resulted in equally hyperbolic corollaries: breathless claims that we have never faced greater risks or such an uncertain future, that forecasting has never been harder. Repeat it enough, and it starts to become believable.
Confession: my crystal ball has been cracked so many times by purportedly unprecedented developments that I have lost count. The 1970s was a decade of extraordinary turmoil: the oil shock of 1973 was swiftly followed by the “Great Inflation” and a period of stagflation, setting the stage for the first seemingly unprecedented phase of the post-World War II era. The subsequent disinflation of the 1980s allowed the horror movie of the 1970s to run in reverse well into the 1990s, which came to an end with the Asian financial crisis, ushering in what was initially billed as the first crisis of globalisation.
But today, we look back on these episodes as mere tremors preceding the seismic shocks to come. The information-technology revolution and the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s and early 2000s hinted at the profusion of asset bubbles that afflicted global property markets and many financial instruments, from sub-prime mortgages to broader credit flows and equities. When the music stopped, the resulting cross-border and cross-instrument contagion fueled the global financial crisis of 2008-09 – another extraordinary upheaval for what had become, at that point, a crisis-battered world.
Just when everyone thought global conditions couldn’t get much worse, a once-in-a-century pandemic and extreme weather events fueled by climate change turned conventional thinking on its head, as did the rising tide of protectionism, trade and tech wars, and a potential superpower collision between the United States and China. Add to that the outbreak of war in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and the unprecedented has become the new norm. Books on the “permacrisis” and the “polycrisis” now make the bestseller list.
The cynic in me says, “Been there, done that.” But just because I have plied my trade as a forecaster during a half-century of turmoil doesn’t mean I have a unique understanding of what comes next. Bearing in mind Mark Twain’s observation that history often rhymes, I offer three key lessons from my experience in attempting to make sense of what may lurk in the uncertain future:
First, learn to expect the unexpected. The human species is inherently autoregressive, always looking to the recent past as the best predictor of the future. Policymakers are especially prone to this myopic approach – repairing flaws in systems that led to the last crisis but never considering what could spark the next one. For example, in the late 1990s, Asian economies built up large reservoirs of foreign-exchange reserves – a move that would have helped prevent the next Asian financial crisis but did nothing to stop the one that actually occurred, which arose from the bursting of an equity bubble.
Second, there is an unmistakable continuum from one so-called unprecedented era to another. One crisis tends to beget the next. Led by the great Paul Volcker, the US Federal Reserve took tough measures to arrest the Great Inflation (as did other central banks). But despite winning the war, policymakers squandered the peace – taking interest rates far too low to preserve financial stability.
Similarly, as global capital markets seized up during the Asian financial crisis, central banks discovered the miracle drug of near-zero policy interest rates. That, in turn, set the stage for the profusion of asset bubbles to come – not just equities but also bonds and credit – that culminated in the global financial crisis a decade later.
Third, crises and the “extraordinary” developments they spawn are now the rule, not the exception. In recent decades, there has been an average of one catastrophe every three or four years. The Latin American debt crisis in 1982 was followed by the 1987 stock-market crash and the 1986-95 savings and loan crisis in the US; implosions in Japan (1990), Mexico (1995), and Asia (1997); the near-collapse of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management (1998); the collapse of the dot-com bubble (2000); Enron’s accounting scandal (2001); the sub-prime mortgage disaster (2007); the eurozone’s sovereign-debt crisis (2010), the “taper tantrum” spurred by fear of policy normalisation by the Fed (2013); a Chinese stock-market crash (2015), a US-China trade war (2018), COVID-19 (2020), and deglobalisation (2023).
It is against this background that forecasters face the seemingly impossible task of predicting the future. Of course, public policymakers face an equally profound challenge: While another crisis is coming, probably sooner rather than later, aligning forward-looking policy with the pitfalls of a highly uncertain future is the functional equivalent of balancing a heavy weight on the head of a pin.
But that hardly justifies self-serving excuses for policy mistakes, or portraying asset-market mispricing and economic dislocations as unavoidable accidents arising from so-called unprecedented circumstances. I have run out of patience with policymakers, corporate decision-makers, and investors who collectively throw up their hands and say, “Don’t blame me.”
This is largely a cop-out. Shocks are here to stay, and our task is not to predict the next one – although someone always does – but to sharpen our focus on resilience. Staying the course of politically mandated policies while minimising the inevitable dislocations is easier said than done. But that is no excuse to fall for the myth of being victimised by the unprecedented.
*Stephen S. Roach, a former chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, is a faculty member at Yale University and the author of the forthcoming Accidental Conflict: America, China, and the Clash of False Narratives (Yale University Press, November 2022). Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2023, published here with permission.
47 Comments
That is because they're flying blind.
And they choose to continue doing so, when challenged (Roach has done so - pers commun).
We chose not to account for the planet - that excused a massed rape of it's stocks of resources (finite ones, renewables and sinks) at exponentially-increasing rates.
That had to inflect, then trend down. Physically impossible to do anything else - as proven by this ne Government; all their moves combined, aren't going to 'grow' activity my any meaningful margin.
Roach is correct, though, about a bigger crash coming, and about the need for resilience. Resilience is not building more ticky-tacky sprawl, resilience is not reducing water-quality to make more dollars out of natural capital reduction, resilience is the capacity to withstand. In that regard, we were better off in 1960, than we are now.
The Earth hasn't run out of food or water, or anything for that matter. This isn't "the past", this is now....we've got jets that fly around the world in hours and colossal vessels that can circumnavigate the Earth with ease to ameliorate those circumstances.
We haven't run out of oil either, despite being told by 'experts' for decades that we will. Modern technology is a big problem solver. Goldbugs will tell you we're running out of gold and silver, but they're being duped by more 'experts'...and actually pay for that bum advice. There's an awful lot of gullible people on this planet.
The earth ran out of dodos and moa...and we're rapidly declining a lot of other species now too.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-living-planet-index
But I'm sure technology will fix that 😉
We've got jets, so we've proved we won't run out of resources?
Sorry, but they all need fuel. Don't know if you've noticed.
And the source is finite.
And while propaganda/hype (aimed at gullible folk like you) rabbits on about battery/electric planes, it's never going to happen for 2-300 passenger, nor long-haul.
I suspect you don't realise how flawed your statement is - but it is; your justification is not connected to the problem. Not even close. Technology is NOT energy - merely a way to harness it to do work. Period. Ex energy, technology is useless.
Stranded asset territory.
Your first posit is spot-on.
Your follow-up assumption is pure bull---t.
Entropy, my friend. Study it. Sadi Carnot was the first to cotton on (that led to the Second Law): it's a fascinating subject.
The problem is that it ends up as low-grade heat, of too low a grade to be useable. Imagine a hot cup of coffee, left in a room. The heat was applied by concentrated energy (called 'low entropy'). Eventually the cup will reduce to the room temperature, which (not counting thermal loss through walls) will be infintesimally warmer (it is known as 'high entropy'). The problem is that to re-heat the cup using the energy in the room, is impossible. It would take more energy than the energy to be collected.
Entropy is STRICTLY a one-way trip. Life - all life - is a constant battle to stave off entropy; always eventually lost - which is why we look older, then die. Nobody will ever run a motorcar on the heat of the car-in-front's exhaust. So too, idiots suggest getting wind energy from passing traffic - forgetting that the energy originated in the passing car's fuel tank, and that a more efficient way to use it would be to burn it directly.
We are half-way through the lowest-entropy stock of energy that humanity has ever - and will ever - see. Go well - while you may. I am an old petrol-head from away back, but I don't pretend I can buck the 2nd Law.
I disagree PDK, if you believe in entropy, then, by definition you don't believe in energy never disappearing. Where you fail in your thinking, is the lack of belief in human progress. Energy that you think has become entropic today, will be able to be harnessed tomorrow. Just consider the incredible technological progress mankind has made in the last century.
Yvil - you may well be a nice person. You may not. But that comment is one of the most ignorant - in the original sense of the word - comments I've ever seen on this site.
I'm guessing that you stopped learning about science prior to the 6th Form (if you learned in NZ).
Please do not comment upon scientific topics, until you've done some homework.
Belief is something different - religion, economic growth forever, those things are beliefs. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is fact.
Cheers.
What was your qualification?
D-GESS or D-MTEC are my guesses.
Siloing, buddy. Almost all Universities are guilty of interdisciplinary genuflection. Einstein was able to be prescient ex-physics, because he worked from first principles. You don't; you work from unappraised assumptions. It's a wide gulf.
Go well.
9th century England they could split an oak tree to make a church and 200 years later Oak trees grew with a spiral grain so they couldn't. Ely cathedral's Octagon is constructed from 6 trees for six edges and the other two edges required two peices joined together because they could not find 8 trees with a suitable large sidebranch. Dodo's were eaten until there were no Dodos. Easter Islanders built boats with the giant palms until the last Palm was cut down leaving Easter Islanders hungry but surrounded by fish. Chippendale chairs were made from a wood the grew on Dominica that is now extinct so it is now impossible to make an imitation Chippendale chair with the same strength and elegance. Probably pasenger pigeon pie was popular in the USA until it went from the most populus bird to extinct in 100 years. Indigenous tribes in America survived on Buffalo until both came near extinction. Caesar’s favourite herb was silphium; worth its weight in gold; extinct by the time of Nero. The European population of Greenland died out. Experts can only be wrong if they survive.
"looking to the recent past as the best predictor of the future" the same is true of warming forecasts that tend to look at the past 2 years or so & expect the ROC to be similar but its accelerating as CO2 & methane concentrations rise. And this is before any impact from the feedback of permafrost & acidic rising oceans.
This is a huge devastating problem that defies a fix as emissions have not been nor are going to be curtailed enough to stop the trend
I always enjoy Stephen's viewpoint. He has form, as they say. His "Expect the unexpected.'' article is true enough. It's difficult to say something like this without enough truth being involved. I too, have had the pleasure of seeing these same years, albeit from a slightly different perspective, further down the food chain from Stephen.
The 60's were a tremendously exciting time to grow up, but I wasn't to know for many years not only how good it was, but how bad it was as well. It was exactly 60 years ago that things really started to fall apart, as the 'new age' began & all sorts of funny things started to appear. Many followed thinking it was the new way, but they were ultimately let down by its lack of depth [or truth]. The 70's were mad - they didn't call it the psychedelic 70's for no good reason. People were literally out of their minds. The 80's was when Raegan & Thatcher began to piece together a better west, which wasn't adding up to very much until they got together. They [along with the EU] were to set up the west for the next 30+ years. Then big tech arrived & the world got very small very quickly. Since then, it has only got smaller. Sigh. But at least we have choices about where we get our mind food from, which means we don't have to put up with the bullshit they peddle to us every night at 6pm.
Totally wrong.
Widespread starvation is caused by widespread lack of food.
Money is perhaps a way for some to shoulder others out of the queue (guns are another) but you can't eat it. Those Greenland Norse died out with EVERY COIN THEY EVER HAD, STILL THERE - but they died gnawing on the raw hoof-bones of next year's herd (they'd chopped all the firewood trees too).
Obviously you are right that no food = starvation. But the last major famines in India didn't occur in the year the harvest failed but the year after when the harvest was good but the poor couldn't afford to buy the food. A millon Irish died of starvation in their potato famine but it was easy to import plentiful food - it was the corn laws imposing massive import duties that prevented them buying at a low price.
Maybe we are saying much the same thing but I'm pointing out the lack of food is often for financial reasons. So Russia and Ukraine fight, stop exporting wheat and poor people in Africa starve while Kiwis and Poms barely notice a change in the international prices for wheat.
Those Greenlanders were surrounded by fish - plenty of healthty protein but they starved.
I have heard the constant refrain that the world is in the midst of “unprecedented changes.” This popular trope frequently resulted in equally hyperbolic corollaries: breathless claims that we have never faced greater risks or such an uncertain future. Repeat it enough, and it starts to become believable.
Covid !!!
Exponential growth, while happening, means things will ALWAYS be unprecedented.
There had never been more than 1 billion people on this planet, prior to the discovery of fossil energy.
There are now 8 billion, mostly thanks to fossil energy being applied to food-production.
We are half-way through that stock - still producing brand-new equipment requiring fossil energy, yet we're into the last doubling-time.
Yes, that is unprecedented. And never-to-be-repeated.
Thank you! I’m glad someone is finally saying this.
Crisis to crisis ( each crisis being completely different and unpredictable) is actually just the world we live in.
It’s actually quite liberating once you accept this. You know crisis’s are going to happen and that you will deal with it as you did the one before.
You also no longer put off major steps waiting for the prefect timing.
See my comment upthread Yvil - until you redress your ignorance (prima facie) of science, you really have no validity as a commenter.
Spend your summer learning about energy and entropy.
https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/980 (it's free-download textbook, from a fairly unchallengeable source...)
Then come back and contribute something other than a belief-based opinion. Those do the discussion no service whatsoever.
I predict that you will avoid. Regardless of the excuse, realise that that will invalidate your continued opining.
Kind regards
PDK.
Oh no it isn't. You didn't say what you specialised in, which means you don't want to.
The simple question is: WHY?
And I've had the other answered; by putting it down, you have excused yourself from reading it. Not that I suspect you are capable of doing so dispassionately.
Yes, the arrogance of the Chicken Littles that believe they live in unprecedented times. 6000 years ago you could walk from London to France and the Sahara was tropical forest. 800 years ago we had a much larger kumara growing range. Longer growing season taro, yam and gourds were extinct by the time Europeans arrived.
The Adaptation of Kumara by the New Zealand Maori (Yen, 1961)
"There is considerable evidence accruing that the climate of New
Zealand has changed in a warm-to-cool direction in the post-glacial
period, fitting the general theory of synchronous changes in the
Northern and Southern hemispheres.13 Raeside's14 comparative studies
of Canterbury soils and vegetation indicate that the climate prior to
1200 A.D. was warmer than present day. Summarizing his findings on
soil investigations, and other evidence of moa remains in swamps,
forestry and pollen studies, and high moraines in the Antarctic,
Raeside15 suggests that a fall in temperature of at least 2⁰ C. occurred.
From ecological studies of South Island forests Holloway16 presents
evidence of recent climatic change which agrees with Raeside's findings.
A 2⁰ C.24 higher temperature in 1200 A.D. than present may have given
New Zealand a considerably longer warm growing season or even a
number of frost-free areas in which for a time, the 'artificial' storage phase
in kumara growing may have been unimportant.
The subsequent deterioration of climate would have provided the
stimulus and time for the Maori to invent the technical methods to
preserve his plants."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20703913
Fix the money by indexing it to something real - energy for instance - and you might, just might, reduce the impact we are having on the planet. Or feedbacks might already be uncontrollable.
But the money system, as constructed, was a fairy-story (unlimited economic growth is possible on a finite planet).
99% of all the species that have ever lived are extinct: we might be next, but the planet will be fine, eventually. Nearly the whole of the earth's surface will be recycled through tectonics into its fiery interior; within a few hundred million years, it'll be like we were never here, and biodiversity will be able to breathe a sigh of relief until the next global disaster.
You confuse two concepts.
Yes, the rock will still float in space, regardless of human actions.
But extinction is a biosphere issue, and human activity is causing a Great Extinction event. That is indeed, a forcing. By one arrogant -and ignorant, considering the ramifications for itself - species.
Did you do that (conflating) as a 'clever' manipulation, or an innocent mistake?
PDK, you really do believe that you know better than all others, and others know nothing! Here are some of your comments form the treads above:
"That is because they're flying blind"
"you don't realise how flawed your statement is"
"Your follow-up assumption is pure bull—t"
"do not comment upon scientific topics, until you've done some homework"
"until you redress your ignorance (prima facie) of science, you really have no validity as a commenter. "
"Spend your summer learning"
I hope you have a happy and peaceful X-mas break.
Read the effing textbook.
You can't let yourself...
For others, this has been an interesting interchange. Yvil made a comment upthread about Entropy, which clearly suggests that he didn't do physics.
Challenged, he equated himself to Einstein, while not indicating what it was he WAS lectured to, about. This boils down to the point: physics is real, and immutable. Other things - like economics and politics - are man-made constructs. Real obviously outranks Construct - but this fellow seems to think (believe?) the reverse is possible. Which is untrue, of course (even if you call the messengers derogatory names).
But most glaring, is the difference in approach. I looked up his alma mater - but he won't dare read my link. One of us is open to learning, one is doggedly not.
I wish him well, but that's the end of rating his posits....
Insightful article thx team. Look I'll get straight to the point, climate science is my thing and it is clear we are headed to the mother of all crashes, could be a series or some large shocks. Dr James Hansen, leading global climatologist, recent paper gives a stark warning- current global greenhouse gas emissions will send us to 1.5 degrees by 2030 and 2 degrees by 2040. This year global Temps already over 1.5 average. There is a way out as per ipcc recommendations of 50% ghg cut by 2030 as a start and net zero by 2040. Ghg and gdp are closely related 50% ghg cut = 40 to 50% gdp cut by 2030. Of course we won't do this and so we guarantee global temp roses over 2 degrees and massive.muchore expensive climate damage.costs. Read up on.the great simplification, nate havens...follow the science first, mainstream economics, government and media is bullshit
Oxymoronic comment - but I doubt you'll see that.
Being not young, if you look in the mirror you'll see entropy in action.
And it will win. We all die individually; the bigger questions are about obligations to others - present and future.
The question is: how much solar energy can we commandeer - there is the little matter of the rest of the biosphere - without altering our habitat to ex-envelope conditions?
I suspect the answer backcasts to 1-2 billion people, living good healthy lives but with orders-of-magnitude less material throughput.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.