Is the crisis caused by Donald Trump’s economic policy choices, by the unpredictability of announcements, their cancellation or withdrawal, more serious than that of 2008?
At that time, the ground was constantly giving way, the real estate markets were collapsing and on the financial markets, the impression of being constantly holding its breath prevailed because the propagation of shocks was neither linear nor instantaneous. It was necessary to find the right compass and give ourselves the means to converge on the right trajectory.
The shock is not of the same nature in 2025. It is not a shock of valuation. It is a man who considers that his country has been robbed by its relations with the rest of the world. Each country is accused of having abused American largesse. China benefited from technology transfers and Europe protected itself through NATO.
Such a crisis is conditioned by the unknown demands made in advance by the Americans to lift the tariff sanctions, by ruptures in the value chains, it is the discussion on the impact of customs tariffs on semiconductors, on the way in which the States will cooperate in the future and finally on the coherence of the world and the respect of cultures.
In 2008, in the face of shocks, the authorities’ response was based on the idea of coordinating efforts. The G20 in London highlighted the collective efforts needed to emerge from the slump and find ways to ensure such a crisis would not recur. The oversight of financial institutions was at the forefront. It was also necessary to collectively revive activity. Central banks also quickly intervened in a complementary manner. Monetary policy became unorthodox. The Fed’s 0% interest rate was restrictive. It was then necessary to move to quantitative easing to unblock the situation.
Today, coordination no longer plays a role because the crisis does not result from market exaggeration, from mechanisms that have gone too far, or from adjustments that are impossible to control. The crisis stems from the idea that the world is divided between the good and the bad, and that this choice, made by the greatest economic and political power of the moment, is not negotiable. The only way out would be to accept the overlord’s conditions. History shows that this only creates an unstable world.
After a crisis, the world never returns to the way it was before. But adjustment mechanisms can limit operational deviations. In 2008, all the countries involved were committed to playing together with consistent rules.
Today, the allure of coordination and cooperation appears outdated. We will have to live differently. If Washington’s strategy is sustainable, it will be the most significant shift in decades. Global public goods, such as the climate, will no longer be material, and we will have to prepare for the worst.