Well, this is my last post of the season. I’ll resume at the beginning of August. But if current events allow, I’ll dip my pen back into the inkwell.

These posts have become a daily occurrence since the beginning of the year and Trump’s election. The role of the economist is to understand growth and inflation, to grasp the logic of economic policies. It is also now necessary to question geopolitical logic. The choices made by governments are not neutral and have an impact on the trajectory of economies, whether developed or emerging.

This dimension is all the more important given that the hierarchy of economic power has changed radically. Since 2000, China in particular, but also India and a few others, have contributed significantly to global growth, often more than developed countries. The GDP of emerging countries is now larger than that of developed countries. This cannot be neutral on the balance of power, which carries a major political dimension. Trump understood this; Europeans are still asking themselves the question.

This new hierarchy is associated with a great interdependence between large geographical areas – our mobile phones are essential but they are assembled in China – strong technological competition, particularly between the United States and China, and a political dynamic that is much more diverse than in the past.
This political dimension is the new entrant in the reflection that we must have on the evolution of the world. During the phase of globalization, the economy dominated the rest, the world had a Kantian dimension since the multiplication of trade and enrichment were supposed to abolish the risk of major conflict.

This framework has been swept away and politics, which on a global scale is no longer democratic – there are more strong regimes than democracies – is the major axis of reflection guiding major decisions, relegating the economy to the background.
It is this new framework, this new hierarchy that is our daily life, not just for economists.

This is where the task becomes more complex because while one can take a position on this or that economic policy, and one is legitimate as an economist to do so, it appears more difficult to present political choices. The economist necessarily departs from the neutrality that he wants to impose on himself.

The disruptions in the world are far-reaching, and we must equip ourselves with the tools to analyze them. Trump’s arrival is disrupting and accentuating the polarization of the world. Economics and economists cannot remain neutral.
For analysis, for understanding the world and its mechanisms, this is an exciting period that is beginning.

Economists won’t be displaced by AI; they’ll have too much work and no time to be replaced by a machine. That’s why, rested and still a little tanned, I’ll see you on August 4th.