2020s on Course To Be Weakest Decade for Global Economy Since 1960s, Says World Bank (theguardian.com) 32
The World Bank sharply reduced its global economic growth forecast for 2025 to 2.3% from 2.7%, warning that the current decade is on track to become the weakest for the global economy since the 1960s. The Washington-based lender attributed the downgrade to mounting costs from "international discord -- about trade, in particular," as Donald Trump's tariff policies create unprecedented uncertainty.
The revised forecast would mark the slowest growth rate outside full-blown recessions since 2008. Even with a modest recovery to 2.4% expected in 2026, the bank characterized the outlook as merely "tepid." Chief economist Indermit Gill said "outside of Asia, the developing world is becoming a development-free zone." Growth in developing economies has steadily declined from 6% annually in the 2000s to 5% in the 2010s, now falling below 4% in the 2020s. The bank said that "many of the forces behind the great economic miracle of the last 50 years" have reversed, with more than half of low-income countries either in debt distress or at high risk.
The revised forecast would mark the slowest growth rate outside full-blown recessions since 2008. Even with a modest recovery to 2.4% expected in 2026, the bank characterized the outlook as merely "tepid." Chief economist Indermit Gill said "outside of Asia, the developing world is becoming a development-free zone." Growth in developing economies has steadily declined from 6% annually in the 2000s to 5% in the 2010s, now falling below 4% in the 2020s. The bank said that "many of the forces behind the great economic miracle of the last 50 years" have reversed, with more than half of low-income countries either in debt distress or at high risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've been posting this for years. Are you so brain dead that this is all you have?
Orange Jesus (Score:3)
Not only shitting in his own pool but the world's.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Orange Jesus (Score:2)
Pretty sure that Covid and Putin's ego project have had a bigger impact than Trump. With all his backsliding, weâ(TM)ll have to wait a little longer to see how much impact Trump has in comparison.
Endless growth is impossible (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet the economic pundits continue to promote the myth that endless growth is possible and write headlines that complain about growth being a bit low.
We need steady-state sustainability
Growth is for trees. (Score:2)
Economy and government is the same way, the former hides non growth by suffering inflation, the latter should only be spending money the people give it.
Debt. debt. deb... ooops the economy will eventually go broke; it is a broken design to rely on increasing debt (spending money you don't have) and inflation (everyone gets a raise every year).
Re:Endless growth is impossible (Score:5, Informative)
Trump: Market decline is a good thing
MAGA: Market decline is a good thing
All he did was bitch about "sleepy Joe" and his bad economy.
Re:Endless growth is impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist." - Kenneth E. Boulding
tools to artifically inflate GDP not working... (Score:2)
A few steps which helped for a while and now are causing a GDP hangover
- Lowering down payments, artificially lowering interest rates and other gimmicks to make it easier to buy a house -> home prices rise drastically -> home sizes increase drastically -> starter homes not being built because of lower profit potential for homebuilder
- Undercounting inflation since before 2000 to reduce old age Social Security burden on the federal budget
- Legalizing corporate stock buybacks, Clinton presidency, whe
Re: (Score:2)
I think most of your points are correct, but you're wrong about this one
Legalizing corporate stock buybacks, Clinton presidency, when previously they were considered stock manipulation and illegal -> corporations buying back their own stock instead of producing more and innovating
Corporations sell stock to rapidly raise capital to fund large expansion and growth. But as others have said, endless growth is impossible. Eventually corporations start flailing around looking for growth opportunities in less and less viable endeavors. Stock buybacks are simply the opposite of selling stock. They are a completely logical way for a corporation to return the capital that was raised by stock sales when the corporation has
Re: tools to artifically inflate GDP not working.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Endless growth is impossible (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet the economic pundits continue to promote the myth that endless growth is possible and write headlines that complain about growth being a bit low. We need steady-state sustainability
Interesting point, but I think it really depends on what you're measuring. If you're Netflix and you're measuring growth of your subscriber base, at some point every human has a subscription and you flatline, disregarding population numbers. If you're digging oil wells and pumping barrels of stuff with a finite supply, at some point you run out of supply. If you're growing corn, at some point you run out of land.
But... if you're looking at the big picture and you're including things like pumping out non-physical things like Marvel movies or Murderbot stories or Mario Brothers games or celebrity voicemail greetings, you can churn out an effectively infinite supply of that. As long as inflation is a thing, you'll be able to charge for those things. Economic growth really depends on consumption. As long as we invent money (which includes just trading things), never-ending growth is possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet the economic pundits continue to promote the myth that endless growth is possible and write headlines that complain about growth being a bit low.
We need steady-state sustainability
Endless growth is entirely possible when it is predicated on the idea that the population contributing to the economy grows. The problem here isn't that growth stopped, it's that it has stopped while there are more people than ever contributing to it. There isn't some fundamental rule of the universe driving the recent trend, that is an actual set of policies that are causing economic efficiency and output to go backwards.
But in any case what you are writing about isn't even relevant here. It's not some cor
Re: (Score:2)
We needed it decades ago, but too many people did well out of the growth phase to give it up. Of course they aren't the ones suffering now.
The younger generations are really screwed. One "once in a lifetime" financial crunch after another, looming climate change costs, and a completely broken social contract. At least they aren't falling for the bad advice their parents gave them anymore.
Not a single mention of a global pandemic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic comment implying that the consequences of Covid-19 was exaggerated? For your info, Covid-19 killed about 18.2 to 33.5 million people and is the 5:th the deadliest pandemic in history. And Malaria is still active, having killed about 608 000.
Well, that’s one hell of a way to miss the parents point. Completely. Let’s see if this drives it home.
Write headlines and stories about how this is setting up to be the “weakest decade” without accounting for an obvious global pandemic?
Even bullshit is calling bullshit on that clickbait.
Re: (Score:1)
The incompetence is staggering (Score:3)
https://www.economist.com/fina... [economist.com]
This administration is too dumb to even know how to conduct a trade war.
Re:The incompetence is staggering (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The incompetence is staggering (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.economist.com/fina... [economist.com]
This administration is too dumb to even know how to conduct a trade war.
Don't worry, they're busy showing you they're too dumb to know how to run a police state to keep you distracted from the trade war they lost.
As for the developing world (Score:1)