“World’s top economies confront inflation, disease, war,” one Sunday headline read.
When G-20 finance ministers and central bankers meet in Jakarta this week, those are the topics they’ll be compelled to discuss. Again: Inflation, disease and war.
These are trying times for humanity. And so far, the best efforts of politicians, policymakers and scientists to stave off calamity have met with mixed results.
Fiscal and monetary policy averted a global depression, but now we have rampant inflation. We spend every waking hour second-guessing politicians for what, in hindsight, looks like an overzealous fiscal response. Or berating technocrats for exacerbating price pressures with monetary largesse. Or, our favorite pastime, maligning economists for being bereft in the forecasting department (as if that’s something new). One simple question that’s rarely, if ever, asked, is why a world that came to depend so heavily on specialization, just-in-time and cross-border trade never bothered to establish a set of emergency mechanisms and failsafes to backstop the system in a crisis. We all want a scapegoat. We just don’t want it to be us.
The development of vaccines and therapeutics eventually turned the pandemic tide, but then it became a war of attrition. It also underscored how unprepared we are when it comes to existential threats to the species. If COVID had been some new, highly transmissible hemorrhagic fever, most of us would probably be dead. The fact that the science itself became a political flashpoint, up to and including death threats against America’s top infectious disease expert, bodes poorly for future biological threats. The read-through for the fight to avert climatic oblivion isn’t favorable.
Finally, if Vladimir Putin does invade Ukraine, it would call into question many assumptions about the nature of wars and conflicts in the 21st century. In short, it would represent something akin to a pure war of conquest by a major world power. We haven’t seen that since World War II. Not in earnest, anyway. Putin has flirted with it. But Russia seizing Ukraine by way of a full-fledged invasion would be a watershed moment. At the risk of extrapolation, it would also open the door to China seizing Taiwan. Beijing is far better equipped to handle the fallout from draconian US economic sanctions than the Kremlin. Of course, Xi’s decision calculus is much different from Putin’s. China is obsessed with optics as the Party seeks to gradually transform the current bipolarity into a unipolar world with itself as global hegemon. Whatever happens, the problem for Washington is obvious: It seems a foregone conclusion that America’s bluff will eventually be called. Relying on treaty language and semantics to skirt implicit guarantees will be seen in Moscow and Beijing for exactly what it is.
The first sentence of the article linked here at the outset reads, “Group of 20 finance chiefs meeting in Indonesia will confront a much-altered global economy menaced by widespread inflation, the threat of war and a legacy of disease.”
Increasingly, I’m compelled to revisit the disconcerting, albeit highly compelling, hypothesis that the decades since the fall of the Soviet Union were an anomaly. Stability isn’t humanity’s natural state.
A testament to that is all that went disastrously wrong during the 1990s and 2000s, a period we typically associate with widespread peace and prosperity.
Based on the USSR’s experience in Afghanistan and the U.S. experience in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Putin should think long and hard about invading Ukraine. Making predictions is a fools game, but (here goes) one could make a good case that an occupied Ukraine will turn out to be the Putin regime’s graveyard. (And good riddance, if it comes to pass.)
This isn’t that, though. Nobody wanted to commandeer Afghanistan, Vietnam or Iraq. It wasn’t about conquest. This would be a literal, old school takeover bid.
I once saw a pack of Lion Dogs back a big Cat up a tree. By the time it was over No Lion in sight just Four downed Dogs and a lot of noise .. Time to understand the other point of view and put on the other guys shoes for a short bit . The world is changing a lot faster than we think…
Taiwan is a much different deal than Ukraine both geographically (water boundry), optics, opponents and value. Taiwan semiconductor has become an indespensible asset to many different entities around the world. Sure China could invade- typically the Chinese prefer to surround their prey and give it a bear hug over the long run. And a Chinese invasion would be very costly militarily- you think South Korea and Japan would not want to react let alone the US? Compared to the Ukraine, Taiwan has much more economic importance to the rest of the world. The Russians have a long history of being overrun by outside forces- it is this history that makes them sensitive and aggressive if they think a rival is nearby- it is their fear that drives their aggression. Odds are pretty high something bad will happen in Ukraine via the Russians- costs are high for the Russians too- but not nearly as high as China/Taiwan. The odds of China doing the same in Taiwan are much lower.
“Inflation, disease and war.” Wow, that list is starting to look like the Four Horseman are starting to ride.
“One simple question that’s rarely, if ever, asked, is why a world that came to depend so heavily on specialization, just-in-time and cross-border trade never bothered to establish a set of emergency mechanisms and failsafes to backstop the system in a crisis.”
Adaptive systems like economies, social organizations and other goal-oriented structures which seek equilibrium are subject to the “Law of Requisite Variety” which mandates that in order to maintain equilibrium, all adaptive systems must maintain sufficient resources to respond to any environmental disturbances that knocks them out of balance. While specialized mechanisms may quickly solve such problems an infinite number would be required and that’s not really practical. There are three resources that can replace many others: money, information and smart people with much generalized knowledge. The trouble is these resources are expensive and while having them available and sitting around is a good idea, it has a high opportunity cost so we don’t do it. The reason JIT is so popular is that it cuts the cost of system operation. The reason it is bad is that without some slack any system is at increased risk of collapse — the reason so many people died when the Titanic went down. Evening clothes were just not warm enough to stave off hypothermia. One other flaw in our system is not the lack of a safety-valve mechanism as much as the politics that inevitably disrupts the ability to implement it. So we will inevitably screw up our system — the one where humans manage the earth perfectly — because we thrive on short-term gain and the right to disagree with everyone, about everything.
+1
Trying times to say the least … from my perspective I saw the US 2003 invasion of Iraq a “pure war of conquest” as it was based upon lies and greed… while I also opposed the US war in Afghanistan at least there was logic to it … both these horrific interventions have contributed to the present global situation, which is dire… actions do indeed have consequences… also hoping Putin fails miserably as he must be confronted and humanity must change its ways, US and western world included…thoughts and well wishes to the people of Ukraine who deserve better…
When confronted with an existential crisis All Nations act the same way irregardless . Putin is doing what he must do and that is something. Way to much talk about First Strike Capability from the adversary that brought on Iraq , Afghanistan , Libya and too many other wars to ignore that fact.
H-Man, this war (if Russia invades) will be over in three days. The market will puke but nothing like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 where the market went down 5% the day after. So a new line will be drawn between Russia and NATO.