Jeroen Blokland

In recent months, there has been a notable absence of discourse surrounding the prospect of a recession. The prevailing discussions among economists and financial analysts now revolve around whether we will experience a soft landing or no landing at all. The notion of a hard landing seems to have fallen out of favour. However, it is premature to entirely dismiss the possibility of a recession.

The U.S. economy has long enjoyed what might be called a Goldilocks scenario: robust growth paired with gradually declining inflation. However, recent data suggest that those days are behind us.

Take, for example, the recent GDP figures which illustrate a stark downturn. After quarters of 4.9% and 3.4% growth, the economy slowed to a mere 1.6% annualized growth in the first quarter of this year. 

China is currently navigating a precarious situation reminiscent of the mythical dilemma between Scylla and Charybdis, grappling with a persistent real estate slump and waning investment interest. Adding to the challenges, U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s policies have further complicated the economic landscape for Chinese policymakers. The looming possibility of a currency devaluation sends a stark warning to global markets to brace for impact.

At the time of writing, the “mother of all equity indices,” the S&P 500 Index, is down a significant 4% from its early April peak. This downturn is partly driven by escalating tensions in the Middle East.

Of course, this in itself isn’t something to cheer about. However, there’s another critical reason why stock prices are under pressure. Interest rates are inching closer to 5%, entering what many consider the danger zone.

This week, the following chart from the Financial Times caught my attention. It shows the net issuance of shares worldwide since 1999. Although the year is still relatively young, 2024 so far shows the largest negative issuance over this period.

As the chart also indicates, in recent years, it has become more common for more shares to “disappear” (often bought back in buyback programs) than are issued. To be precise, in four of the last nine years.

Growth has turned into our modern-day holy grail—a beacon that politicians, companies, and individuals relentlessly chase, often with promises and aspirations that border on the fantastical. Every election cycle, candidates tout it as their deliverable. Businesses chase perpetually climbing profits, and personal discontent brews if our earnings stagnate or our living spaces don’t expand. Yet, ironically, the signs increasingly suggest that, deep down, we might not truly crave this endless expansion.

France reported a few weeks ago that its already exorbitant budget deficit of 4.9 per cent of French GDP would be breached. And that was no lie. According to statistics agency Insee, the budget for 2023 will go into the minus by a whopping 5.5 per cent. And with that, the chances of France becoming a second Italy are rapidly increasing.

Over the past year, Nvidia’s stock has soared by more than 200%, igniting talks of a “bubble” among the self-proclaimed financial seers. But what precisely do we mean by a “bubble”? This term, often thrown around loosely, lacks a consistent definition among its most vocal proponents.

Comparatively minimal macroeconomic news of substance emerges from China; however, the information that does reach me through Bloomberg and other outlets offers little cause for optimism. To illustrate the initial point: a decade ago, China’s National Bureau of Statistics released over 80,000 economic indicators; presently, this figure has dwindled to fewer than 10,000.

In the ever-escalating tech tug-of-war between China and the United States, the dragon nation is unleashing a full-scale mobilization to propel its technological prowess forward. The gloves are off as the U.S. and its partners continue to throw up roadblocks, ushering in an era of deglobalization, at least on the political front.