Everything will be fine - just not quite yet

By MoneyWeek editor-in-chief Merryn Somerset Webb Aug 04, 2010

Merryn Somerset-Webb

Share with
friends:

Comments (16) Print this article

I'm settling into my summer reading: I've read Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist and I've now moved on to a note just out from Baillie Gifford called Rational Optimism.

I found myself rather taken by Ridley's book – largely because I think I might be something of an optimist myself. I'm mildly concerned about peak oil, but I also think it pretty likely that any long-term crisis over a shortage of fossil fuels will be thwarted by something along the lines of Ridley's "vast solar power farms" in Algeria, and some "pebble-bed passive safe modular nuclear reactors". As my husband mutters every time an oil doomster comes to dinner, the Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stones.

I'm also less concerned about food shortages across the world than many. The fact that there are now more obese people in the world than starving people – 1.3bn versus 800,000, according to Prof Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina – surely tells us that hunger is a matter of politics and logistics. And those are more solvable problems than a worldwide lack of land or faltering productivity.

So, like Ridley, I think that the world will eventually "pull out of the current crisis because of the way that markets in goods, services and ideas allow human beings to exchange and specialise for the betterment of all".

I'm also convinced by many of the points made by James Anderson, manager of the Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust, and chief investment officer of Baillie Gifford. He notes that the "cult of pessimism defies current and historical reality" – which shows that the rate of global growth has increased steadily over the centuries. It was a mere 0.01% a year during the years 1 to 1000 (this is clearly a best guess) but had hit 0.2% by 1500, and 0.3% by 1820. Move to 1914, and 2% was "commonplace". From 1950 to 1973, growth was at 5%. Since then, it has been around a respectable 3%.

Although last year wasn't exactly top of the pops, Anderson has great hopes for the future. As economic growth appears "closer to exponential than linear in the long view", we could soon be thinking that growth of 5% is "modest."

He isn't worried about the eurozone on the basis that "markets regularly panic over deficit peaks that turn out to be mirages" and that, thanks to the wall of worry and subsequent low valuations this panic creates, equities often "gain strongly in real terms in the decade after debt peaks".


Special FREE report from MoneyWeek magazine: When will house prices bottom out - and how will you know?

  • Why UK property prices are going to fall 50%
  • When it will be time to get back in and buy up half price property

He isn't worried about China being a bubble, either. Instead, the massive rise in infrastructure spending that has the bears so worried is a "vital, justified sustainable and intelligent response to urbanisation".

It is feisty stuff to chuck into a banking-crisis-driven deflationary environment, but Anderson does put up a good case for a rosy global garden. The main drivers of the improved growth rate of the past couple of centuries – imitation and innovation – remain entirely intact. In the same way that northern England was once copied by Belgium, northern Germany and North America, and in the same way that Japan and western Europe copied the US postwar, Asia now copies the West as a whole.

You might say that this kind of "sweat" (mobilising capital, introducing basic education and facilitating technology transfer) is not enough for long-term growth. However, it is certainly enough to be getting on with, says Anderson. The International Monetary Fund puts gross domestic product per capita in India at $1,031 – which means that "there is lots of potential return on sweat still to come."

It isn't just those currently at the bottom of the heap who are on the move. Anderson says "those at the front of the economic queue continue to make progress", too.

Take synthetic biology, where progress is astonishingly fast. Anderson has even heard an expert claim that curing cancer is "low hanging fruit". That "matters a lot more than Greek debt," he argues.

All this unbridled joy seems to have served Anderson well. His fund is up 74% over the last five years. That's an unusually good performance. But there is, I think, a problem with the optimistic case today: it is just too long term. It is very possible things will have worked themselves out for the best in a few years. But – given the traumas that Europe still has to go through, the risks of a double dip, the fragile state of the banking system and the political risks that come with austerity – it is unlikely that things will have been worked out in six months.

Of course, curing cancer is a bigger deal for humanity than how much the Greek government owes Europe's big banks. But, over the shorter term, it is the latter than matters to our pension pots.

So, while I have taken heart from reading Ridley and Anderson, neither has made me want to invest much: not enough people are yet pessimistic enough for equities to trade at the kind of levels from which we can expect to make large returns. We'll get there – and then Anderson and I will be at one. But not yet.

• This article was first published in the Financial Times

Your capital is at risk when you invest in shares - you can lose some or all of your money, so never risk more than you can afford to lose. Always seek personal advice if you are unsure about the suitability of any investment. Past performance and forecasts are not reliable indicators of future results. Commissions, fees and other charges can reduce returns from investments. Profits from share dealing are a form of income and subject to taxation. Tax treatment depends on individual circumstances and may be subject to change in the future. Please note that there will be no follow up to recommendations in The Right Side.

Managing Editor: Theo Casey. The Right Side is issued by MoneyWeek Ltd. MoneyWeek Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. FSA No 509798. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/home.do

Comments (16)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. david franks

    (04 August 2010, 11:17AM)  Complain about this comment

    Yes mid term growth will resume but we have to get over

    1. Increasing unemployment
    2.House price decline
    3.Banks not lending
    4.Currency debasement(4 majors)/blowup
    All the above will create a flight to quality
    and caution.

  • 2. Jim

    (04 August 2010, 11:56AM)  Complain about this comment

    Interesting article.

    I suppose its how to survive this financial rigmarole unscathed that can be a daunting task for most of us.

  • 3. Jonathan Baylis

    (04 August 2010, 12:28PM)  Complain about this comment

    I've just read David MacKay's book 'Sustainable Energy - without the hot air', available free as a PDF. He focuses (readably and entertainingly) on the scientific feasibilities, putting in numbers. It turns out that to provide a billion people with the average European's current energy consumption of 125 kilowatt hours per day would require two 'concentrating' solar farms, one in North Africa, the other in the Middle East, each the size of Germany (or 16 times the size of Wales if you prefer the traditional measure). Other sustainable options are similarly daunting in scale.

  • 4. gs

    (04 August 2010, 12:33PM)  Complain about this comment

    Phew! Was nearing boiling point and fearing for your sanity there Merryn until I got to the final 3 paragraphs...saved by the bell!

    What a load of nonsense this Anderson fellow is spouting...classic example of where a successful PM (and his record would suggest as much) mistakes his career to date experiences for the whole spectrum of possibility. I think the term is fooled by randomness.

    So Anderson's prognosis is that at some stage in the future of humanity economic growth in the West will reach 5%? Good point well made chap. Question is, will what comes in between have the potential to wipe you out (economically speaking) if like him you confuse your range of experiences with the possible range of experiences. I am sure there are plenty of optimists in Japan still convinced that reflation is around the corner...but will they live to see it?

    This chap needs a dose of Taleb.

  • 5. Phew

    (04 August 2010, 12:55PM)  Complain about this comment

    That's saved me from investing any money with James Anderson.

    If his genuine justification for optimism is that because growth was higher between 1973 and now than it was between 1 and 1000 AD (ignoring that the period leading to 1973 was one of higher growth than the period after 1973), it must keep going up exponentially, then I can't understand how anyone would trust him with their cash.

    Between 1981 and 1995, my height increased at an average rate of 4 inches per year. Based on past performance, I should now be 11 feet tall. I'm not, in case you were wondering.

  • 6. David

    (04 August 2010, 12:58PM)  Complain about this comment

    I read David MacKay's book last summer. It should be required reading for anyone considering investing in energy renewable or otherwise. It is truly eye-opening towards the scale of what needs to be done to wean society off oil and gas.

    Put it on your summer reading list!

  • 7. Stephen B

    (04 August 2010, 01:02PM)  Complain about this comment

    Matt Ridley was also a non-exec at Northern Rock, which he only briefly mentions on one page of his book.
    Humans are adaptable creatures - we wouldn't be here now after thousands of year of human civilisation were it not for the fact that things tend to turn out ok in the end.
    In the meantime I'm keeping my gold for now.

  • 8. smlaing

    (04 August 2010, 02:59PM)  Complain about this comment

    Everything turns out rosy in the end! The end may be 50 to 100 years I suspect.

    I'm sure things will get better...........After a protracted period of delevarage (default, writedowns)

  • 9. JAW

    (04 August 2010, 03:36PM)  Complain about this comment

    It is true that few economists, businessmen or politicians take a long term view, but with population growth approaching a critical phase this century it is probably time to do so. The thesis that economic growth is exponential and 5% may well be modest in the future fails to ask the question... How long do you expect mankind to be on this planet?

    The dinosaurs existed for 60 million years, man so far for just 1 million. If we are to survive for even another million we need to establish a long term sustainability relationship with the Earth's natural resources.

    Per year, we should only use 1/50 millionth of the world oil, coal, gas, metals, agricultural fertilizers, rare mineral elements etc. Any more and we will be labelled the selfish stupid century by unborn future generations.

    5% x 50M = 250M % growth. Laughable.

  • 10. Bertha Vanation

    (04 August 2010, 03:40PM)  Complain about this comment

    The 'stone age' comment is a trite and irrelevant comparison. The last 100 years has seen an exponentiation growth of population & industry all underwritten by cheap & plentiful fossil fuels. There will be NO painless and easy transition.

    Relying on renewable sources is a dangerous and delusional myth, they may replace 5% of electrical usage but your can't fly a jet liner on solar power nor produce mountains of fertilisers for mass industrial food production from it.

    The peak oil debate is a contentious and controversial topic but it is one that is not being taken anywhere near seriously enough by our current generation of inept political representatives, given the potential for it's consequences.

    A little light reading is recommended.
    The Long Emergency, James Howard Kunstler

  • 11. Supermarine Blues

    (04 August 2010, 08:10PM)  Complain about this comment

    So many trite statements, it's true.

    Bjorn Lomborg blew out a lot of the myths with empirical evidence years ago.

    Although I prefer to quote Spike Milligan; Copulation = Population = Pollution.

    Need to sort out organised religion, first.

  • 12. Chang

    (04 August 2010, 08:36PM)  Complain about this comment

    Successful small scale nuclear fusion was recently achieved under lab conditions (net energy output) Obviously scaling this up to produce power will be a major challenge and may take 50 years, but it is now practically as well as theoretically possible and it is only a matter of time before humanity has access to unlimited clean energy. all this wind and wave nonsense will just be a stop gap.

  • 13. Howard

    (04 August 2010, 08:58PM)  Complain about this comment

    In the economic history the country which masters the skill to utilise energy (19th century was UK, 20th was US, 21st who?) would be the world power. Free unlimited power would solve all our current financial problem, but would also induce other moral hazards.

    The first question I would ask, "Who should control the nuclear fusion reactor?" the government? The EDF?

  • 14. smithy

    (05 August 2010, 03:18AM)  Complain about this comment

    we never relied on stones for energy.

  • 15. IJ

    (05 August 2010, 10:35AM)  Complain about this comment

    Nice article. Whether one agrees with these people or not, whether one is an optimist or a pessimist, is immaterial. I for one am fed up of listening to people of all stripes who talk about the future with conviction. It's just good to have a reminder that the range of possible outcomes is a great deal bigger than we think. I think a lot of us in the UK are so locked into the bearish paradigm that we simply can't envisage anything else. And we tend to project our own woes onto the world, maybe because we're still caught up in a kind of colonialist mindset. I doubt whether many people in China or India sip tea and discuss the 4 things David Frank mentions on a daily basis. What is commendable about the optimists, or rather the non-pessimists, is they are the ones showing some imagination whereas the bear case is too bleeding obvious.

  • 16. A Hamilton

    (05 August 2010, 11:52AM)  Complain about this comment

    I'd recommend the paper "A global coal production forecast with multi-Hubbert Cycle analysis" by T. W. Patzek and G. D. Croft published in the journal Energy (volume 35, Issue 8, August 2010) for some sobering summer reading.

    Peak oil is real and we're going through the peak now. These authors put the world coal production peak in 2011. Next year.

    The authors are engineers, not economists, so they know what they are talking about and the paper has been peer reviewed.

    Peak oil + peak coal means that 62% of world fossil fuel energy is about to enter decline. That's good news for climate change, but pretty desperate for the world economy.

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment emailJohn Stepek

Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.

>