Playing the long game is the only game in town

The support programmes implemented by governments have barely got off the ground but already central banks are stepping in to lend their support. The US Federal Reserve plans to offer an extra $2.3 trillion of credit and support the market for high-yield corporate debt in a bid to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses can access the central bank’s largesse. Meanwhile the UK government will borrow from the Bank of England to meet its financing needs via its long-established Ways and Means facility. This will allow the government to sidestep the bond market in order to ensure it has access to its funding needs. Since the amount borrowed is due to be repaid by the end of the year it does not constitute monetary deficit financing. But given the current strong demand for safe haven securities – a gilt auction this week had a bid-to-cover ratio of more than 3 – we have opened the floodgates to such unconventional financing measures much earlier than I expected.

In the BoE’s case, the irony is that the latest announcement came just a few days after the new Governor wrote a column in the FT making it clear that the BoE is not and will not be engaged in monetary financing. Andrew Bailey emphasised that “the UK’s institutional safeguards rule out this approach … [and] the MPC remains in full control” of the policy instruments designed to increase the central bank balance sheet. Simply put, if the BoE buys financial assets this is purely in line with the BoE’s inflation remit. But the element that is often overlooked is that the remit is “to maintain price stability; and subject to that, to support the economic policy” of the government, where the government’s policy objectives include a “credible fiscal policy, returning the public finances to health, while providing the flexibility to support the economy.” The BoE’s policy remit is about far more than simply controlling inflation – whatever it says in public.

But what is monetary deficit financing and why is it so “bad”? In simple terms, it amounts to central banks creating money to pay off the government’s creditors. The conventional argument is that it results in excessive liquidity creation that eventually results in higher inflation (too much money chasing too few goods). The textbook example of such a policy is the action of the Weimar government in Germany following World War I which chose to inflate away its debt by printing money but which instead resulted in the great hyperinflation of 1923. Admittedly it was successful as a debt reduction strategy but disastrous in terms of its other economic side effects. A century on from this experience, Germany remains scarred by the memory and was instrumental in writing the provision into the Maastricht Treaty that prohibits monetary deficit financing in the euro zone. More recently, it was practiced by Zimbabwe and the policy was only stopped when the currency became so devalued that the government was reputedly unable to pay for the ink required to print more banknotes.

It is thus generally accepted that allowing governments to control the monetary printing press is a bad idea for it may encourage them to over-expand the money supply. The conventional narrative is that allowing central banks to enjoy a degree of autonomy over monetary policy in the last two decades is one of the key factors helping to curb inflation. I have argued before that this is far from the whole story but it has certainly played a role. However, over the past decade central banks have bought huge amounts of government debt which has led to a massive rise in central bank reserves (i.e. liquidity creation) but not resulted in higher inflation. Indeed, the BoJ and ECB have struggled to push inflation towards their target goal of 2% despite a balance sheet worth 100% and 40% of GDP respectively (see chart, taken from the St Louis Fed). This is in part because the institutions which sold their securities to the central bank have simply gone out and bought other assets, notably equities, thus pushing up their price. There may not have been too much money chasing too few goods but there was a lot of it chasing a dwindling pool of high yielding assets. I have little doubt that liquidity creation will be inflationary in some form. It will surely push up asset prices although whether it inflates consumer prices remains to be seen.

The actions of the Fed and BoE in recent days confirm my suspicion that we will be engaged in financial repression for a long time to come (i.e. central banks will do everything in their power to keep interest rates low). They are likely to go further: The BoJ has been buying assets on an industrial scale for almost 20 years and both the Fed and BoE have a lot of headroom to ramp up their balance sheets without necessarily sparking CPI inflation if the Japanese experience is anything to go by. As it currently stands, central banks buy debt in the secondary market (i.e. not directly from the issuer) and for the foreseeable future they are going to be buying a lot of assets. Past experience suggests that at some point they will call a halt to the process. At that point, they can sit on their bond holdings indefinitely. As bonds mature, they can roll over the debt by cashing in the proceeds and use them to buy an equivalent amount of additional securities. In this way, the central bank balance sheet remains unchanged and it continues to hold the same amount of government debt.

Technically, this is not monetary deficit financing because the presumption is that at some point the central bank will sell its debt holdings back to the private sector. A small complication arises from the fact that in the UK, the BoE hands over the interest it earns from its bond holdings back to the Treasury so it is in effect monetising the interest payments, but that is small beer. A bigger issue is whether at some point the central bank will simply write off its government debt holdings. It is not going to happen anytime soon, so we can rest easy on that score. But they may surreptitiously be able to do so in the longer term. The BoE plans to hold £645 bn of bonds, which amounts to around 30% of annual GDP. Suppose that in the long-term nominal GDP growth averages 3.5% per year and that the BoE rolls over its debt holdings ad infinitum. After 25 years, the bond holdings are worth 13% of GDP and in 50 years just 5% of GDP.

Is anyone going to complain if in 50 years’ time, the BoE writes off (say) half of these holdings? The current generation of central bankers will be long gone and I certainly won’t be around to do so! Therefore, the issue of whether central banks are likely to monetise the debt holdings built up over the last decade is something we will only be able to judge long after the current crisis is past. Sometimes playing the long game really is the only game in town.

Real time economic reality

As the Covid-19 horror unfolds before us, it becomes clear with each passing day that this is a humanitarian crisis the like of which none of us have experienced in our lifetime. The economic consequences are a second order issue but over the coming weeks and months we will realise just what a huge hit the economy has taken. Central banks and governments are doing their best to mitigate the worst impact of the downturn, but they can never do enough. But just how bad is the downturn likely to be?

I have spent the last week trawling through up-to-date high frequency data to get a sense of where the UK economy stands. It does not make for pretty reading. Without going through all the indicators, one of the obvious places to start is with electricity output, taken from the National Grid at four hourly intervals. It is difficult to draw direct inferences for output given that factors such as temperature play a significant role in determining demand, but the fall in output following the introduction of the UK lockdown on the evening of 23 March is very marked (chart below). It is particularly noticeable that output during the day has fallen sharply whereas off-peak output has not, which is indicative of the collapse in demand from businesses that would otherwise be open and consuming electricity, such as shops and offices not to mention the power hungry manufacturing sector. A rough estimate suggests that output is down by around 3-4% compared with pre-lockdown trends, which I reckon is consistent with a GDP decline of up to 15%.

Wherever you look there is evidence of an economy which has simply hit the buffers. Rail journeys are down 95% on this time last year whilst the number of bus passengers is down 88%. People are also using their cars much less, with overall traffic numbers down 71%, though on the plus side those that do have to travel on the roads find that congestion has eased considerably (chart below).

The retail sector has also taken a significant hit. Footfall is down by around 80% compared to a year ago whilst the collapse in spending in the leisure sector has been almost total, with restaurants and pubs having been shut for two weeks. My calculations suggest that consumer spending in Q2 could fall by up 20% which is likely to mean a double-digit collapse in GDP growth. As workers are laid off, some temporarily but some perhaps permanently, we are likely to see an unprecedented rise in unemployment. We already know that the number of claimants for Universal Credit rose by almost a million in the second half of March, although since this includes people claiming in-work benefits as well those making unemployment claims, it is difficult to know how this will impact on the labour market figures. However a conservative estimate suggests that the jobless figures for April could show a rise of up to 2% in the unemployment rate. We have never seen such a sharp jump: the usual pattern once an economy falls into recession is for unemployment to pick up with a lag as the corporate sector adjusts slowly.

My guess is that this will lead to an annual reduction of around 6.5% in real GDP this year. To put this into context, based on the BoE’s long-term historical databank which contains GDP data back to 1700, this would represent the sixth worst output decline in the 319 years for which estimates are available. We have to go back to the immediate aftermath of WW1 for anything remotely like it. Faced with an output reduction of this magnitude, my concern remains that any economic recovery will be a protracted affair. Company earnings will take a huge hit which will shape their business practices for a long time to come. In many instances this will force a strategy rethink with attendant consequences for investment and employment. Unlike the post-2008 period which was characterised by companies being propped up by low interest rates and the substitution of labour for capital, the coming years may well see a more pronounced period of Schumpeterian creative destruction. 

Business models which rely on complex supply chains will likely be overhauled. If we had concerns about rolling back the globalisation trend before, the post-crisis world will almost certainly produce a sea change. The inability of countries like the US and UK to produce sufficient personal protection equipment for front line medical staff can be expected to spark a debate about the extent to which western economies rely too heavily on foreign producers to provide the manufactured goods they need. Suggestions that the likes of India are withholding drugs for use at home that they would otherwise export will further fan the flames of economic nationalism.

I will deal with the fiscal fallout in more detail another time but it is clear that we are going to be awash with government debt for years to come. It is unlikely we will be able to grow fast enough to significantly reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio given that we are faced with an ageing population, which leaves us with two alternatives. Either governments will have to embark on a policy of major austerity, which is likely to be highly unpopular given the experience of the past decade, or the real value of debt will have to be inflated away. Central banks have spent the past 20 years lauding their achievement of taming inflation and tell us today that they have no intention of relaxing their vigilance. I would not be so sure: Policymakers have a habit of changing their mind if the circumstances demand it.

Flexibility will be the name of the game in future as electorates make different demands of their governments than they have in recent years. We should be no illusions as to the profound social and economic changes that are to come. But first we have to get through the current crisis!

Divided we stand

The euro zone’s credibility took a significant beating in the wake of the Greek debt crisis which began to spiral out of control a decade ago. By 2012 it was clear that the monetary union project would have to be reformed, with more emphasis on building internal shock absorbers if it was to avoid the fate of previous attempts to create a union based on fixed exchange rates. Despite all the warm words, however, little progress has been made to create any form of fiscal union. Indeed, the efforts of Emmanuel Macron after he assumed office in 2017 have fallen on deaf ears, particularly in Germany. We now find ourselves faced with the deepest economic crisis since 2008 and arguably the most severe social crisis since WW2 with a fiscal framework which is not fit for purpose. This will be an existential test for the euro zone which cannot afford a rerun of the events of the past decade.

One of the most contentious issues in European economics right now is the prospect of issuing coronabonds – a common debt instrument that will enable the hardest hit countries, such as Italy and Spain, to issue securities guaranteed by all euro zone nations, including Germany. It is, as one might imagine, a hard sell in Germany where the idea of debt mutualisation contravenes the spirit of what the German public thought they had signed up to when agreeing to a single currency (not that they were ever asked). We have been here before: It was a major topic of discussion in 2012 when the prospect of Eurobonds was floated – and rejected – as a solution to help out highly indebted euro members.

To understand today’s concerns we need to recall our history. Whilst it is true that a number of euro zone members were heavily indebted, they were financed by capital flows from surplus countries prior to 2008. But when the music stopped, their creditors decided no longer to play ball. This was understandable but we should not overlook the fact that the heavily-indebted southern nations were allowed to become members of EMU despite not fulfilling the excessive debt criterion. Their creditors actually gave them the keys to the kingdom only to throw them away a few years later. Part of the reason for this lax attitude was because in the late-1990s, the EU only paid lip service to sovereign debt issues. After all, it had been on a downward trend relative to GDP for the preceding 50 years. The real focus was on deficits. Yet when France and Germany continually flouted the 3% of GDP deficit threshold just after the turn of the millennium, they escaped without any fiscal sanctions. Then the bust came and governments started to worry about debt again. Greek anger at the way they were treated in the wake of the 2008 bust is not without foundation.

Today’s problems are different. The world faces a humanitarian crisis and nowhere is suffering more at the present time than Italy or Spain, where coronavirus-related deaths continue to rise. The measures required to curb the spread of the disease are expensive, entailing massive wage subsidies and potentially a nationalisation programme as states are forced to prop up large parts of the economy. Italian anger at Germany’s refusal to sanction coronabonds is thus understandable. But as Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, a former ECB Council member, pointed out whilst coronabonds are a great idea in theory, in practice they “entail a major political choice to transfer sovereignty, on a whole range of issues, from the national to the European level.” He has a point: If the euro zone is to act as guarantor for debt, it needs to be backed up by tax raising powers. As Bini Smaghi put it, “Eurobonds cannot be issued to finance current expenditure, unless such expenditure and the resources to cover it are brought under the responsibility of the EU.” Moreover, if we introduce such mutual bonds today, what is to stop countries from issuing them in future to finance pet projects backed by Germany’s excellent credit rating?

Instead, Bini Smaghi and large parts of the northern European establishment prefer the idea of using the European Stability Mechanism, established in 2012, to disburse the funds. Unfortunately, any funds disbursed by the ESM are conditional on an adjustment programme, whereby borrowers must agree to abide by a series of conditions. Some form of legal change would thus be required to make it acceptable to Italy because as it currently stands, the ESM has a stigma attached to it.

Whilst the arguments against coronabonds have a sound legal basis, this is not the time to be hiding behind the letter of the law. Something has to give, and the longer northern European EMU members drag their feet, the more pressure will build up inside the euro zone. And as I have pointed out before, Italy is not Greece – it has the largest sovereign bond market in the euro zone which is five times that of Greece, and it will not be so easy to intimidate. And if we do not get some form of common bond and Italy is forced to issue BTPs and significantly expand its debt-to-GDP ratio, it will certainly not accept a period of austerity after the crisis has passed, simply to placate those who believe its debt level is too high.

It may be stretching it too far to suggest that failure to act on this issue will precipitate a breakup of the single currency. But the bloc simply does not have the automatic stabilisers which are necessary to combat shocks in a fixed exchange rate system. And the longer this problem is ignored, the greater will be the problems in the longer term. As the German economic historian Albrecht Ritschl has pointed out  “Germans prefer to let their history start with the zero hour of 1945“. But German historians know the price of failing to tackle deep-seated economic problems, particularly when it comes to debt.

Any letter you like - except V

It has become clear in recent days just how much damage the sudden stop in economic activity triggered by the COVID-19 crisis is likely to cause. The services PMIs across Europe collapsed sharply in March with the UK recording an all-time low on data back to 1996 which represents five standard deviations from the mean. The release of today’s US initial jobless claims data showed an extraordinary rise which was 33 standard deviations from the mean on weekly data back to 1967 (chart).  This is an economic collapse the likes of which none of us has seen. It can be likened to the economic equivalent of hitting a wall at high speed: Not only does the car get smashed up but it will take time to recover from any injuries sustained.

It is for this reason that my doubts about a V-shaped recovery continue to mount. The BoE noted in the UK context that “given the severity of that disruption, there is a risk of longer-term damage to the economy, especially if there are business failures on a large scale or significant increases in unemployment.” Many companies have effectively been forced to cease business as a result of the lockdown implemented earlier this week, which will have major implications for cashflow, and a number of them may not resume trading when restrictions are finally lifted. To give some idea of how much the collapse in spending is going to impact on the economy, UK restaurant bookings have slumped to zero over the second half of March based on data from Open Table. On average, restaurant traffic is 55% below levels in March 2019 and with a weight of 9.5% in total spending this alone will reduce consumer spending by 5% relative to a year ago. Assuming restaurants do not reopen in April, the drag on annual spending will double. Notions of a 10% collapse in Q2 GDP suddenly do not look so fanciful.

A measure of the swing in expected 2020 economic growth against the 2019 outturn gives us an idea of where the Covid-19 effect is likely to hit hardest. Assuming Italian GDP falls by 5% this year following a small gain of 0.3% last year this produces a total swing of 5.3 percentage points. By contrast, Chinese growth is only expected to slow from around 6% to 4%, producing a total swing of 2 percentage points. In the UK I currently expect something like a 4.5 percentage point swing. Naturally, forecasts at this stage are little more than guesswork so we should not read too much into the numbers, but given the severity of the crisis in Italy it is reasonable to assume it will take a major economic hit.

Obviously we have no clear idea about the duration of the crisis but the standard assumption is that the bulk of any output contraction is concentrated in the first half of the year. That is itself a huge assumption, but even if turns out to be true, many businesses will not survive the current hit despite the huge amount of support that the government is prepared to give. This will prove to be a searing economic experience for many of us, and that is without discussing the human costs associated with coronavirus. But it will not only be small firms that change their behaviour. Large firms will also be more circumspect given the impact that this year’s recession will have on earnings which will act to hold back investment, and in any case they are likely to hold off on big spending plans until they are confident that demand is once again on an upward path.

It is, of course, too easy to extrapolate the bad news out into the future without taking account of the resilience shown by western economies. On the basis of what we know about the coronavirus now, there will be an economic recovery and probably sooner rather than later. But to give some idea of the impact of economic shocks, I looked at the three major recessions in the UK over the past 40 years and discovered that on average it takes almost four years for output to recover its pre-recession peak. An output collapse of 4% this year followed by three years of trend growth of 1.5% indeed means the usual four year cycle will hold. Matters will be all the more difficult for many western economies given that potential growth today is far slower than prior to 2008 as a consequence of an ageing population and the sluggish nature of productivity growth over the past decade. Recall that in the wake of the Lehman’s collapse it took an awful long time to be convinced that the economy had turned the corner. I suspect the same may also happen this time around.

That said, the 2020 recession will be a catalyst to revisit many areas of the economy that have been ignored over the past decade and I will deal with them in more detail another time. But to throw out a few ideas at random, we are likely to find ourselves paying a lot more attention to the lessons of Keynes than we did a decade ago. Whatever else we take away from the 2020 experience, it is that there is a role for the state as an agent of last resort to step in when there is deficient demand. State capitalism is thus going to be higher up the agenda in many countries and it will be difficult for governments to introduce austerity programmes when this is all over. After all, we have had a decade of it in the UK and where has it got us? We will also have to have a public debate about how much state we want and how we plan to pay for it. I suspect the era of tax cutting may be over for a long time to come.

However, the future can make fools of us all so we should revisit some of this blue sky thinking in future to see whether it stacks up. Nonetheless I am struck by the fact that just as the post-1945 era was very different to the pre-1939 world, so we might look back at the unprecedented events of 2020 as the point at which the world economy changed.

Rising to the challenge

After another week of market drama, with big price corrections and a drying up of market liquidity, central banks and governments are stepping up to the plate to provide the biggest support package in modern times. We should not be under any illusions about the nature of the economic shock that is unfolding before us and as a response risk is being socialised to an unprecedented degree. This is a recognition that the coming shock is likely to be significantly worse than Lehman’s for the simple reason that COVID-19 is affecting everybody’s daily lives, not just a small section of the community. 

The market position 

From a market perspective, the wild movements we have seen in recent days represent attempts to find an equilibrium based on a complete absence of information. Precisely because we have no idea of how bad the COVID-19 infection rate will be nor how badly the economy will be impacted, investors cannot make even the roughest of guesses as to where the bottom is. We hear lots of reports from investors keen to put their funds to work, arguing that there are bargains to be had. But whilst this is understandable, it may be totally wide of the mark. What appear to be solid businesses today might suffer significant knock-on effects in future as they emerge from the other side in worse shape than we thought. 

Take airlines as an example. Admittedly they were operating on thin margins anyway, so they were always going to be badly affected by the collapse in international travel. But the risk is that people will change their post-crisis behaviour, perhaps because they are less willing to travel or because they start to pay more heed to the environmental implications of air travel. As a result, investors looking for bargains today may be disappointed if they back the wrong horse.

This underpins my view that we should be wary of accepting the consensus view that there will be a V-shaped economic recovery. In a sense, a lot of displaced activity in the coming months will be “permanently” lost. After all, people will not visit restaurants or bars twice as frequently in future to make up for the activity that they will be forced to forego during the spring. And in the early stages of any recovery, the crisis mentality is likely to persist with the result that the rebound may be much slower than supposed. Thus, rather than taking a year to recoup lost output it may take up to two (or even more). Suggestions that this may mark the start of a second Great Depression may sound alarmist, but the idea that we are about to return to business as usual strikes me as overly sanguine. Without wishing to sound trite, recall that 10 years after the crash of 1929, the world was hit by another shock in the form of World War II which resulted in the biggest expansion of the state in history. Dark times indeed! 

Monetary policy has acted with what limited scope it had left 

The policy response was a little bit slow to get off the mark at first but the authorities have reacted decisively in recent days to do “whatever it takes” to provide support. Central banks have committed to pumping in huge amounts of liquidity, in the form of direct asset purchases to ensure markets can continue to function and in the form of loan guarantees for businesses to ensure their continued operation during the worst of the crisis period. The renewed bond buying is an easy way to provide liquidity to banks but this is a blunt instrument to support the overall economy. However, it will support the bond market following a period last week when it wobbled following concerns at the sheer amount of debt that governments will be forced to issue. 

Whilst loan guarantees are a positive step, they are still loans, which means that many companies operating with already-stretched margins will have to take on additional debt in order to survive. Many small businesses are going to take a major hit as their income flows dry up and there will inevitably be staff layoffs which will hit people particularly hard at the lower end of the income scale. Governments have increasingly realised this and have moved quickly to adopt unconventional fiscal solutions. 

But fiscal policy is where the action is

The UK acted swiftly on Friday to unveil its Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS), in which the government has committed to pay up to 80% of the wages of furloughed workers, up to a limit of £2,500 per worker each month. This will cover the period March to May and will be extended if necessary. It will not be cheap. Some back of the envelope calculations suggest that if 10% of employees are laid off, this could cost up to £8bn per month if all workers are paid the maximum amount. This will obviously vary according to the average payout and the proportion of furloughed workers and the table below shows some illustrative monthly fiscal costs.

In addition to these measures, the UK government has announced a deferment of business VAT payments due between now and the end of June and has extended the period of interest free loans to small businesses from 6 to 12 months. It has also raised the standard rate of Universal credit and Tax Credits for one year from 6 April, with the result that claimants will be up to £1040 per year better off, and has committed to providing an additional £1bn of support to renters. As one who has called for many years for greater use of fiscal instruments to support the economy, it is gratifying to see the government act decisively in this way. There are those who have pointed out the irony that it is a Conservative government which has acted to leverage up the UK national balance sheet, having criticised Labour governments for doing just that. But in truth, this is the right thing to do. People are being asked to make sacrifices and need support to help them do so.

A question which has been put to me by non-economists is who is going to pay for all this largesse. In truth, we are – maybe not immediately, but in the longer run. The UK government will have to significantly raise borrowing – it is too early to determine by how much – and if other governments around the world follow suit, there is going to be a lot of competition for bond investors’ attention. Under normal circumstances, bond yields would be expected to rise sharply in anticipation of big increases in national debt, which would in turn imply a rising proportion of tax revenue being used to service debt. Governments would thus be expected to respond with fiscal tightening. After a decade of austerity, this will clearly not be a vote winner. However, we can expect central banks to continue bond buying in an effort to keep interest rates low as we enter a period of intense financial repression. Low interest rates appear set to stay in place for years to come.

Future historians will likely look back at this week in 2020 as the point at which the world changed. Hopes that we would resume our march towards pre-2008 normality appear to have been dashed for good. We are now on a different economic and social path, and nobody knows where it will lead.

It is not irrational to be concerned

If we thought that Brexit was a major economic challenge it pales into insignificance compared to the threat posed by COVID-19. As the days unfold, the spread of the disease is following the normal pattern associated with infections, which in the early stages follows an exponential curve until it begins to level off. It is quite obvious that things are going to get worse before they get better which is going to result in a lot of human misery, never mind the economic consequences.

If we can take a step back, however, it provides a fascinating test bed for many of the theories put forward by behavioural economics, which applies psychological insights to the economic actions that we take, and which is in stark contrast to the assumption of rationality which underpins much of conventional thinking. I was reminded of this by the signs which began to appear reminding us all to wash our hands in a bid to spread the disease. This is a classic application of nudge theory which attempts to provide positive reinforcements to encourage a particular course of action. Supermarkets have known for years that prominently displaying a particular type of item encourages sales and it has also been used by various health campaigns (recall the famous 1980s campaign designed to combat AIDS “Don’t die of ignorance”). Nudge theory works up to a point, in as much as it does have an impact on short-term behaviour although its usefulness as a determinant of long-term behaviour is open to debate. However, as this study noted just a month ago, the case for hand washing as a first step to control the spread of epidemics appears indisputable.

Perhaps one of the most contentious issues in the early stages of the outbreak is the extent to which people are stocking up on provisions in case they will be needed. This led to the bizarre situation last weekend whereby shops were completely sold out of toilet rolls and other forms of sanitary wipes, whilst hand sanitizers are virtually impossible to get hold of. The government’s advice is that people should not panic buy. But can we really describe the current situation as panic buying?

Panic can best be described as taking irrational actions in the face of extreme stress. However, as an economist, the notion of taking preventive action strikes me as a perfectly rational forward-looking response. Whilst I am less sure about the need for such huge quantities of toilet rolls, there is a case for having some emergency food provisions. Indeed, the Swiss government has long recommended that each household should have a stock of drinks and food for a period of seven days in the event of a disaster (not that they all do). If you believe that a major problem is about to be visited upon you, which in the worst case will prevent you from leaving your home, a sensible forward-looking economic actor will make some sort of contingency rather than trust to luck. You certainly do not have to be some hardline survivalist (or prepper, if you prefer) believing in the imminent collapse of society to anticipate that the information given by governments today will change in future in response to changed circumstances. However, there is also an element of herd instinct driving some of the recent actions by individuals. We may not in the end need the huge quantities of toilet roll that have been purchased, but in the event we do, you certainly do not want to be the individual who has ignored the actions of the rest of the herd.

Human history is littered with examples of catastrophe, from plagues to harvest failures which once upon a time were a regular occurrence.  These required societies to set aside a store of food to tide them through the hard times, but modern societies which rely heavily on just-in-time inventory management are unable to cope with shocks of this magnitude. Many western societies are unused to making such provisions and it feels very alien to our way of living to have to think in such terms. It ought to act as a wakeup call on so many levels. Our supply chains are long and easily broken and should force us to think more carefully about the limits to globalisation. As I noted in this post in 2016, my views on weighing the costs and benefits of globalisation have changed over the years. The current episode has also made people realise the benefits of international cooperation. Admittedly the rapid spread of COVID-19 has been made possible by the extent to which borders have opened up but equally the solution to what is now a global problem will also have to be global.

As for recent market moves, investors’ actions of late have not been entirely irrational. Financial investors always have to deal with decision making under uncertainty, but today the uncertainty levels have risen to unprecedented levels. I have long extolled the virtues of the distinction between risk and uncertainty which was made by the economist Frank Knight in his magnum opus Risk, Uncertainty and Profit  a century ago. In his words, “risk means in some cases a quantity susceptible of measurement, while at other times it is something distinctly not of this character.” A known risk “is easily converted into an effective certainty” while “true uncertainty … is not susceptible to measurement.” Accordingly it makes perfect sense for markets to sell off in what is the biggest shock to markets since 2008. The unknowable economic consequences are such that we cannot predict what will happen to corporate earnings other than to say there is no near-term upside, and it is impossible to call the bottom of the current slide. However, most investors believe things will get worse before they get better.

And they have certainly been bad of late. On the basis of UK data going back to 1709, the performance of the FTSE All Shares so far this month has been worse than at any time since the collapse of 1720 following the bursting of the South Sea Bubble when prices declined by 38% in September and a further 25% in October of that year. The 1720 episode was the response to a good old-fashioned bubble. The collapse of 1987 (which was bad enough) was attributable to global monetary tensions and exacerbated by automatic trading systems which contained no circuit breakers. Today, it is attributable to genuine concerns about life and death and in the grand scheme of things, market moves can often seem somewhat trivial.