How to get out of the crisis?

Published: March 3, 2009 - 18:03
This article received :  5 Comments

A lot of effort is put in analysing the causes of the crisis. We now well understand that excess credit growth and unsustainable growth models in major economies led to the economic and financial problems we are now facing.

Problem solving and solutions are however a different matter. The UK think tank 'the Young Foundation' today published a paper entitled "fixing the future". It can be downloaded here .

We argue for adapting recovery plans to put a much greater emphasis on future growth industries rather than bailing out failing ones. Most available evidence suggests that the biggest employers of the next decade will be in health, education, care, environmental services and tourism. Yet recovery plans have been primarily oriented to sectors with smaller shares of employment and that are likely to further shrink in the years ahead. The care industry should be a higher priority than cars. The voluntary sector is more likely to grow jobs than retail banking.

All this seems to pass the "Econoshock"-test, and tries to balance sustainability with solidarity and free entreprise. Although some criticism can be given on the free market aspect of some proposals, they are not less or more subsidized than some ailing industries and companies at this moment.

Our central argument is that the majority of current policy responses have been inevitably designed to fix the past, putting right the mistakes of the banks and others. The priority in the next phase is to shift direction towards fixing the future.

And the future opportunities are very much according to the Young Foundation in line with the final chapters of Econoshock: energy and the the green economy.

blog

The YF puts a BCG-like solution box, that combines short term and long term policies with economic and societal needs. It is worthwile to take this as inspiration for the current crisis.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt argued in 1932 for “bold persistent experimentation”, and said “it is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something”

I like the sound and the freshness of their approach.

More Articles in Financial »

5 Comments

  1. Frank 

    On 3 Mar, 2009

    I'm very skeptic about their proposals:

    1. "Health, education, care, environmental services and tourism" are all sectors that heavily depend on government sponsorship. Government is broke, people are broke, banks are broke. It's time to pay back debt and start producing instead of consuming. It's time to save and invest in future productioncapacity. Health, education, care, environmental services and tourism are all very nice, but in a sense, their level depends very much on the prosperity of a nation. And it is precisely the prosperity of the west that is underminded by this crisis. In fact, prosperity was just an illusion. Health, education, care, environmental services and tourism need to be paid for. Therefore, investement in these sectors needs also to be focused on export of these services. We need an overall focus on export of products and services in western economies.

    2. "Franklin Delano Roosevelt argued in 1932 for “bold persistent experimentation”, and said “it is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something”"

    Mr Roosevelt was the person who confiscated gold and devalued the dollar. By doing that he rewarded debt and punished savers and producers. He sure tried something. The question remains however if his deeds were very nobel. We need savers and producers and you are not going to get more of them by punishing them. What we need above all is an honest money system so all these excesses can't happen anymore and producing and saving is rewarded. That is the only way to prosperity and sustainibility. We need more Ron Paul, Von Mises, Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, ... and less Roosevelt, Bernanke, Trichet, Geithner, Summers, Obama. Alltough Obama knows who to inspire, he is simply more of the same bailoutinsanity and keynsian madness which is going to make matters worse. When I talked about depression a few months ago it sounded ridiculous. Now I hear the word "depression" from Roubini, Soros, Bernanke, Faber, ... Even Dr Doom Roubini gets scared now. How come so few people see what's coming?
  2. MarcVdB 

    On 3 Mar, 2009

    How would you feel about the government forcing unsecured bondholders to convert their bonds to common equity? That should improve the balance sheets.
  3. frederic 

    On 4 Mar, 2009

    @Frank

    A stable economy is an economy based on both, production and serices.
    Another point about production, 30 years ago a factory with 2000 people could produce e few thousend cars a year. Now a 2000 people factory can produce 30.000 cars . Due to the automatisation (witch is needed to compeet and to be efficient) production is faster then ever. So if we al need to start working and producing in the next ten years the world is filled with products.
    Hasn't the world produced fast enough already ?

    Also, out of healthcare, enviromental services there will come lots of technologie witch can also be traded ,the pharma market, medical equipment market en green market will be THE future markets, and don't you think there is money to make in the future biggest markets ? Or do we have to stick to old school production wich is going to die out (less jobs needed for the same product every year, cheaper, ...) ?

    I do agree we need to import less and produce more for our own needs and to take on our balance. But I don't believe in black and white stories.
  4. philip wittmann 

    On 9 Mar, 2009

    I don't know how to get out of this crisis. I actually have a question : is it sound economic policy to try to ignore the business cycles? I have the feeling that the crisis that happened now had to happen 7 years ago. Isn't it right to purge the system first and start again later on a "sounder basis". I am not sure that getting out to quickly out of this mess will not create an even bigger one in x years. I am a man of the street and I don't believe in free lunches. I have the impression that the ultimate solution found by governements is to unload the debt of companies' back and carry it on their books. In other words we're loading our kids' backs with years of debts to carry. Is that right, morally? We all know how good our governments are at managing things efficiently ;-). I have a scenario but unfortunately I can't find an end to it : (1) companies keep on failing quickly (hopefully), (2) governments keep on pumping loads of cash into banks and corporations. (3) After a brief deflationnary period (how long?) inflations rises materially (4) central bankers due to the dire state of the economy (again) hesitate to raise interest rates high enough (5) The poor and the eldest are left behind, even more than they are now as their salaries and retirement benefits are eaten away. (6) People start having serious doubts about the fiduciary value of money. In other words the basis assumption of our system disapears: TRUST. This is where I have some trouble writing the rest of my scenario. Can somebody please help me?
  5. Phone blocker 

    On 1 Dec, 2009

    Great post you got here. It would be great to read something more concerning this theme.

Post a comment

max. length of 1500 characters

Econopolis Wealth Management

  • Next generation type of asset management
  • New approach of wealth management for individuals, families and institutional clients
  • Based on the principles of the bestseller “Econoshock
  • Adapted to the profound changes our world is going through
Members of the 'Econopolis Group'