2019 년 10 월 11 일 - 3 분 읽 기 
 Why disruptive innovation drives populism more than globalization . Policymakers and investors need to think long and hard about the coming challenges from technology . 
 If generals often fight the last war , why should economic policymakers be any different ? 
 Amid a fresh prediction that trade friction will shave $ 700 billion off the global economy next year , the world ’ s finance ministers and central bankers convene in Washington this week for the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and IMF . ( Wags have called it “ Burning Man ” for bankers , but it ’ s hardly a crowd with cultural revolution on its mind . ) 
 Amid the inevitable talk of tariffs and populism , however , there ’ s some important thinking afoot among the IMF ’ s economists –- the looming threat to a globally integrated economy may be less about Chinese subsidies and more about the march of technological progress . 
 If true , bankers and investors should all stop bemoaning the drama around Brexit and tariff escalation and start thinking hard about how we adopt new technology and train the workforce . Machine learning , automation and robotics , the research suggests , will likely do more to undermine political cohesion and global growth than any trade skirmishes ahead . 
 Of course , as markets echo each trade headline and every consumer data point , investors will inevitably focus this week on further downgrades to global growth forecasts . Three - quarters of the world ’ s economy is now officially slowing this year , according to the IMF , while 90 % was speeding up just two years ago . There will also be handwringing around models that predict a major downturn might trigger $ 19 trillion in corporate defaults -- more than the damage caused by the financial crisis . 
 But there is very little in these predictions that hasn ’ t already been priced into equity markets that are delivering healthy dividend yields ( 1 . 92 % for the S & P 500 ) or bonds that are priced at negative yields ( $ 14 trillion by the latest count ) . Meanwhile , the most extreme default predictions assume a severe recession , which doesn ’ t look likely now . 
 “ Bankers and investors should all stop bemoaning the drama around Brexit and tariff escalation and start thinking hard about how we adopt new technology and train the workforce . Machine learning , automation and robotics will likely do more to undermine political cohesion and global growth than any trade skirmishes ahead . ” 
 In a preview speech last week , the IMF ’ s new chief , Kristalina Georgieva , urged policymakers to address she what she calls “ fractures ” around trade and global supply chains . She reiterated the standard prescriptions that include more coordinated fiscal and monetary policy as well as targeted structural reforms . 
 Yet a striking chapter in the IMF ’ s latest World Economic Outlook challenges the prevailing narrative that cheap labor in poor countries lies at the heart of the inequality that fuels populist politics in Europe and America . In an attempt to explain regional inequality within countries , the IMF ’ s experts place the blame squarely on the march of progress rather than unfair Chinese trade practices . 
 Even in dry social science prose , their conclusions should turn heads : 
 “ Although much discussed , trade shocks — in particular greater import competition in external markets — do not appear to drive the differences in labor market performance between lagging and other regions , on average . By contrast , technology shocks — proxied by declines in the relative costs of machinery and equipment capital goods — raise unemployment in regions that are more vulnerable to automation , with more exposed lagging regions particularly hurt . ” 
 The report appeared coincidentally at the same time as a mea culpa issued by Nobel - prize winning economist Paul Krugman around his profession ’ s ( and his own ) underestimation of the impact of globalization on jobs and inequality . While these disruptions should not have a large impact on broad measures of inequality in the long run , he confesses the speed of the disruption that started in the late 1990 s has delivered lasting damage to individual industries and communities . 
 LOW & MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES MERCHANDISE EXPORTS AS A % OF WORLD GDP Source : World Bank , Haver , as of December 31 , 2018 
 TOTAL U . S . MANUFACTURING EMPLOYEES ( SA , Thousands ) Source : BLS , Haver , as of September 30 , 2019 
 But Krugman stops short of arguing for a tougher tariff policy as he explains that the major disruptions from trade are mostly old news . Global supply chains now depend on this global labor market and shutting them with tariffs and other trade sanctions would do more harm than good . 
 Of course there are adjustments to global trade and financial rules that may help address populist discontent , and these will squeeze corporate profits . Little infuriates voters more than multinationals that don ’ t pay taxes , and recent talk of cooperation suggests many tax bills will rise . Large tech giants may also face greater regulation as consumers increasingly worry about lost privacy . 
 Yet the much harder questions remain how governments and businesses will address the next major disruption to the global economy , which is coming from technology rather than trade . Some of the answer includes targeted support for beleaguered communities and retraining for displaced workers , but this has rarely done much to absorb the shock . 
 The question arises on the margins of the U . S . presidential election but has yet to enter the main debate . “ It ’ s Technology , Stupid ! ” isn ’ t much of a bumper sticker after all , but if the assembled investors and economists spend all their time in Washington this week talking about trade and tariffs , they will be fighting the last war . 
 19 - 979929