International Monetary Fund (IMF)

Subterms

    Latest story

    263 Shares98 Views

    The Guardian view on Trump’s shock therapy: warehouse and transport workers are the first victims of a class war | Editorial

    by

    The White House, eager to win a trade war it barely understands, has yanked the emergency brake on China-US trade without checking who’s inside the vehicle. Donald Trump’s early April trade decree has taken a month to hit the economy – that’s how long Chinese containers need to reach Los Angeles. And on cue, US pacific ports registered a 45% drop in container bookings this week from China. When warehouses fall quiet and trucks idle in California, the silence will creep eastward. Unemployment will surely tick upwards.Even if Washington reverses course by the end of May, and Beijing plays nice, the best-case scenario is delayed damage. Some goods are being rerouted to avoid charges, but you can’t reboot global logistics overnight. This isn’t strategic decoupling – it’s economic self-harm. By the time the Trump administration notices, it will be too late. The consequences of the US president’s rash tactics will reverberate through Main Street. Mr Trump offers a flippant excuse: blame 11-year-olds with too many dolls – not his own tariffs – for rising hardship.US gross domestic product just shrank for the first time in three years – despite Mr Trump’s promise of a “golden era”. His tariffs are steering the world toward a downturn. Even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) knows it. According to its latest modelling, the fund now sees the probability of global growth falling below 2%, a threshold widely seen as equivalent to a global recession, as approaching one in four. That’s double the risk it estimated six months ago. Escalating US tariffs, says the IMF, are the main reason behind the darkening skies.What does this mean for the world? Below 2% global growth, much of the per capita gains vanish. Most of what’s left is soaked up by expanding giants in Asia and Africa – places with the people and industrial catch-up capacity to grow even in a weakened global economy. The UK does not have this. Britain is an ageing, post-industrial economy in a productivity slump without the momentum of demographics or the slack of underdevelopment. That’s why Labour can’t afford to sit back. Rising living standards and real economic security require government to invest, build and redistribute – because the market alone won’t.Commentators still blindly cling to David Ricardo’s 1817 theory of comparative advantage – as if today’s global capitalism mirrors Georgian England’s trade in wine and cloth. It doesn’t. Ricardo assumed nations specialise based on domestic costs. But in a world of mobile capital, it’s companies that specialise, not countries. That’s what the economist Dani Rodrik warned in the late 1990s: free capital flows undermine comparative advantage. Development now depends not on obeying trade patterns, but on shaping them – through industrial policy.But Maga protectionism isn’t rebuilding US industry – it’s shock therapy. Mr Trump engineers a trade crisis to hike prices, kill off “uncompetitive” firms and clear the way for a leaner, capital-heavy economy. Meanwhile, tax cuts hand America’s oligarchic tendency even more power to reshape markets in its image. Mr Trump’s narrative promises a revival for US workers – particularly the unionised holdouts in places such as Detroit – but what they will get is higher costs, stagnant wages and patriotic slogans. This isn’t industrial policy. It’s class politics disguised as economic nationalism – a controlled demolition of what remains of US labour’s bargaining power, sold as a populist renaissance.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    More stories

    • 175 Shares126 Views

      in US Politics

      Despite Pope Francis’s wishes, there’s little appetite for richer nations to help the poorest

      by

      Pope Francis’s vast funeral in Rome on Saturday featured a certain amount of politicking amid the splendour, against the magnificent backdrop of St Peter’s Basilica.If the meeting between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump results in progress towards a less inequitable peace than the one currently envisaged by the US, perhaps that will be fitting, given the late pontiff’s consistent calls for an end to war.But in Washington last week, at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, where the architecture is far less glorious, campaigners struggled to find much backing among the powerful for another aspect of Francis’s worldview – his calls to make 2025 a Jubilee year of debt forgiveness for the world’s poorest countries.A quarter century on from the hugely consequential Jubilee 2000 movement – in which churches played a major role – the pope had asked a commission chaired by the economist Joseph Stiglitz to report on the issue next month. Debt relief is also likely to be discussed at the UN financing for development conference in Seville in late June.But there was little optimism in Washington that any country is prepared to offer the necessary moral and political leadership to force the issue up the agenda. Certainly, it will not be the UK, which played a crucial role in the Jubilee 2000 campaign under Gordon Brown, but has shown little interest in the issue since imposing brutal cuts to aid spending, to boost defence.Meanwhile, ample evidence was shared in Washington to show how the situation is rapidly deteriorating. The IMF’s analysts warned that Trump’s dramatic shake-up of the global trading system, the final shape of which remains impossible to guess, will depress economic growth and ratchet up the risks of financial crisis.For emerging economies, the outlook is especially bleak. Many had already been left heavily indebted, after grappling with the Covid pandemic. And as the IMF’s Global Financial Stability Review made clear, one side-effect of the market chaos triggered by Trump’s “liberation day” is likely to be tighter financial conditions.That will make it harder, and more costly, for countries to refinance their debts – a problem the IMF said could be compounded by fresh volatility in the currency markets.The more is spent on debt repayments, the less is available for important areas of government spending that are necessary for development. As Achim Steiner, the head of the UN’s development arm, the UNDP,said on the sidelines of the spring meetings: “The debt servicing is essentially a defunding. We’re defunding, or forcing countries to take money out of their social and welfare and education budgets and health budgets just to service their debt. This is for obvious reasons bad: it’s not sustainable and ultimately contributes further to locking countries in into this stagnation.”He added: “If you are defunding your own education system, you’re locking yourself into a generation that is going to fall behind.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA report by the British thinktank Development Finance International into tackling inequality in eastern and southern Africa, published at the spring meetings, found that 40% of countries in the region spent more on debt servicing last year than on healthcare and education combined. Since 2022, 80% have cut social spending as a share of their budget.This comes at a time when the economic impacts of the climate crisis are already being felt, in the soaring costs of extreme weather events for example. There is a consensus, at least outside the White House, that significant investment will be needed to manage the transition away from fossil fuels.Another report launched in Washington last week – from the expert panel on climate and finance, a joint project of the Colombian, French, Kenyan and German governments – warned of a “vicious circle”, between the “debt, climate and nature crises”.“Debt pressures and environmental vulnerabilities are most pronounced in the poorest and most credit-constrained countries … yet these countries account for only a tiny fraction of the consumption and emissions driving nature loss and climate change,” they said.Even the IMF itself suggested last week that debt restructuring may need to be part of the toolkit to respond to the rapidly changing economic and financial situation.“The path forward demands clarity and coordination. Countries should work constructively to promote a stable and predictable trade environment, facilitate debt restructuring, and address shared challenges,” it said in its World Economic Outlook.But campaigners complain that the IMF’s debt restructuring process, the Common Framework, is cumbersome and time-consuming – and can still leave beneficiaries with high servicing costs, because it does not contemplate debt write-offs.Scott Bessent, the US Treasury secretary, when he was not taking anti-woke side swipes at the IMF and the World Bank, said he would like to see the IMF get more involved in restructuring struggling countries’ debt. In a much-analysed speech, he said the IMF should “more proactively push official bilateral lenders to come to the table early, to work with borrower countries to minimise periods of debt distress”.Some development campaigners seized on his comments as a positive sign that the US would not stand in the way of multilateral efforts to ease the burden for the world’s poor.But others warned that in saying that he wanted to “make the IMF again”, and calling for it to be a “brutal truth teller”, Bessent appeared to be yearning for a return to the bad old days of economic shock theory, when the fund swept into struggling countries and imposed a prescription of harsh spending cuts and privatisation.Meanwhile, as they geared up to amplify Francis’s calls for a jubilee, some in Washington last week privately warned it may take a large-scale default to force the world’s powerful to accept the need to lift developing countries’ debt burdens. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the IMF’s warning: Donald Trump could cost the world a trillion dollars | Editorial

      by

      Wake up! When the most sober of global institutions, the International Monetary Fund, abandons its usual technocratic calm to sound the alarm on the political roots of global financial instability, it’s time to pay attention. The IMF is warning of a non-negligible risk of a $1tn hit to global output, as Donald Trump’s erratic “America first” agenda – part oligarchic enrichment scheme, part mobster shakedown – collides with a perfect storm of global financial vulnerabilities.Such a shock would be equivalent to a third of that experienced in the 2008 crisis. But it would be felt in a much more fragile and politically charged environment. This time, the crisis stems not just from markets but from the politics at the heart of the dollar system. The IMF’s latest Global Financial Stability Report sees the danger in Mr Trump’s trade policies, especially his “liberation day” announcements, which have pushed up America’s effective tariff rate to the highest in over 100 years.The IMF put investors on notice that Trumpian volatility was taking place as US debt and equities – especially tech stocks – were overvalued. It cautions that hedge funds have made huge bets that have gone sour, requiring them to sell US treasuries for cash and potentially deepening the chaos in bond markets. Ominously, the IMF draws the comparison, first made by the analyst Nathan Tankus, with the “dash for cash” in March 2020 during Covid, when the Federal Reserve rescued US treasury markets directly. Developing nations, already grappling with the highest real borrowing costs in a decade, may now be forced to take on even more expensive debt – the IMF warns – just to cushion the blow from Mr Trump’s new tariffs, risking a dreaded “sudden stop” in capital flows.At the heart of this chaos stands the US, the very country meant to uphold the global financial architecture. Just over a week ago, Adam Tooze of Columbia University wondered if markets had begun to “sell America” after US long-maturity bond prices fell precipitously. He thought that markets were no longer just responding to economic fundamentals but to politics as a systemic risk factor. In this case: Mr Trump’s tariff threats and his increasing political pressure on Fed’s chair, Jerome Powell. In essence, Prof Tooze gave us the theory; the IMF just confirmed the data.The US president’s continued attacks on the Fed chair over the weekend have only added to a flight from US equities, bonds and the dollar itself. The money is fleeing to safe havens such as gold. Some of the loss has been clawed back, but at what cost? Investors aren’t just jittery about inflation or growth – they’re hedging against political chaos. That might explain the seemingly divergent IMF messaging: blunt systemic warnings in its report versus the soothing market-facing comments from a senior official at the fund’s press conference. This is central bank diplomacy. The institution is signalling that it is worried while trying not to spark a self-fulfilling panic in treasuries and the dollar.The real concern here is not technical dysfunction in treasury markets or the mechanics of the Fed, which are the bedrock of the global financial system. It’s about the politicisation of the monetary-fiscal nexus under a Trumpian regime that is fundamentally hostile to the norms of liberal-democratic governance. When even the dollar is no longer a safe haven, what – or who – can be?Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More