Tag Archives: recessions

July 2026 in Review

Most frightening and/or depressing story: The idea of a bursting AI investment bubble is pretty scary, especially to those of us approaching retirement. The recent boom in private capital spending seems to be the major thing propping up the US economy. The short-term stimulus effect is fairly obvious, but the question is whether the longer-term productivity effects the markets seem to be expecting are going to show up before the markets lose patience.

Most hopeful story: A carbon price is still a very good idea, even if propaganda has pushed this idea out of the headlines we see on a daily basis. About 30% of the world’s carbon emissions have a price on them, which is more than I would have thought. Several comprehensive academic analyses suggest the carbon price should be in the range of $100-165 per metric ton. Only a few countries are at this level, but the fact that many countries actually have the legal and administrative mechanism for a carbon price in place seems hopeful to me. It proves that when we are being led to believe these policies are politically impossible in the United States, this is in fact just effective propaganda. Political winds can and do shift, particularly when a crisis becomes obvious (I am not hoping for one), and the rational policy options are waiting in the wings.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: I encountered a proposal called “targeted sufficiency“: “a sharp reduction in labour hours and material footprint, a large shift in consumption from material to immaterial sectors (education/health), and a substantial change in food habits, allowing for a strict deforestation ban and a gradual return of global forest cover to the 1900 level…global convergence of all countries to 60k Euros 2025 PPP in per capita GDP by 2100”.

AI boom or bubble (or both)?

The Bank of International Settlements sums up the AI bubble concerns pretty well.

the optimism surrounding AI may not last, despite its promise of future productivity gains. The current surge in capital expenditure could prove unsustainable if supply bottlenecks restrain production. Intense competition for market leadership may fuel overinvestment further, as seen in previous innovation waves, increasing the risk of a sharp reversal if AI payoffs disappoint.

The positive economics effects we have seen from AI so far may be mostly due to economic stimulus effects. Spend a massive amount on construction, whether of public infrastructure with public dollars or private capital with private dollars, and you get a big multiplier effect. This raises growth and potentially also inflation. Productivity gains from AI are expected by most people/experts, but the question is really the timing. If they obviously show up while hype is still high, the train rolls on. If they show up on a lag of years or decades, the bubble bursts and there is a significant period of pain before things gradually and hopefully permanently pick up again. This doesn’t matter to the wealthy and immortal among us, but to those of us in our last decade or so of work before retirement, it’s our lives!

I also wonder how long-lived these capital goods are. Public infrastructure operates for decades even if it gets somewhat obsolete compared to the latest and greatest new designs, but computer hardware evolves so fast I wonder if these massive data center buildings and their appurtenances are going to be operable a decade from now.

deflation and oil price shocks

In fast-moving current events as I write on March 22, 2026, the insane, illegal war of aggression started by the US in Iran (okay, maybe started by Israel, but it was the choice of the US and our mad leader to enable it) continues to escalate. We have talk of ground troops. We have talk of intentionally targeting civilian water infrastructure, which is a massive and unambiguous violation of international law not to mention common morality. There has been idle speculation at least about the use of nuclear weapons. I hope there will not have been a nuclear exchange by the time you read this. If the world is going to get past this moment and move on to a path leading back toward eventual normalcy, this has to end and the people who caused it have to be held accountable. And now, back to regularly scheduled programming…

This article suggests that the oil price shock caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 played a role in snapping Japan out of decades of deflation, and that the current shock caused by the Iran war could do the same for China.

Recently I posted a contrarian analysis suggesting that China’s deflation is not a true recession, but rather evidence of a sudden acceleration in manufacturing productivity. This article presents the more conventional picture:

Since the country’s COVID-19 reopening in late 2022, a manufacturing glut and sluggish consumer demand have led to intense price wars that eroded company profits and slowed wage growth.

Where am I going with all this? I don’t know yet – it is something I am struggling to understand.

Are recessions good?

Recessions have become more rare in recent decades, and you have to leave it to the Economist to suggest that this might be a bad thing. Well, the Economist and Joseph Schumpeter, who is my personal favorite economist.

Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian economist, argued that they provoke “creative destruction”. Failing firms leave the market, capital decamps to more promising technologies and workers move to more productive jobs. The result is short-term pain and long-term gain. Schumpeter did not argue that politicians should deliberately engineer downturns. But nor did he think they should try to prevent them. “Depressions are not simply evils, which we might attempt to suppress,” he wrote. They represent “something which has to be done”.

In my many grade-school years of American history (which seemed to be the only kind of history I ever got, unless you count that one year of Virginia history I had to take), I remember my eyes glazing over when hearing about “the panic of 18XX”. Where “XX” represents pretty much any odd numbered year during that century. It just seemed to be a wild and woolly time with no central banks, regulation, or consumer protections. Lots of people got rich, and lots of people lived in what we used to call “third world” conditions.

It makes sense to me that businesses should not be overly insulated from the consequences of the risks they take, while ordinary people mostly should. So this points to not a lot of bailouts for inefficient industries, coupled with robust social insurance like unemployment and disability. In the U.S. though, what I see is big business capturing the government and successfully insulating itself from the consequences of risk taking, which suppresses competition and Schumpeter-esque innovation. We do sort of seem to get the unemployment thing right though, when push comes to shove, which worked out pretty well during the pandemic. People who were employed when the pandemic hit seemed to do okay. People who were not employed fell through the cracks of course, as they tend to do in our system. And if they turned to drug or alcohol abuse, they fell even further due to our lack of universal health care.

So my quasi-libertarian prescription here, which I think Schumpeter and even Hayek might approve of, is to let the companies compete and innovate, or die. Let them hire and fire at will. But workers need to be protected by robust unemployment, disability, health care and child care programs. The government needs to raise and then redistribute revenue to do this, but everybody comes out ahead in the aggregate except a few fat cats at the top who would rather use their wealth and power to rig the system in their favor than have to compete and innovate. Recessions are also the time to double down on infrastructure, research and development, education and training funding which underpin long-term productivity growth and innovation of an advanced economy. I think Schumpeter’s ghost would love that!