The “Megathreats” according to Nouriel Roubini are that “economic, monetary, and financial threats are rising and interacting in dangerous ways with various other social, political, geopolitical, environmental, health, and technological developments.”

This is a long article with a lot in it, but one thing I always like to puzzle over is how real-world phenomena translate to money and financial markets. One advantage of understanding this would be to find numbers provided by financial markets that translate back to the real world, and in an ideal case maybe these could even serve as early warnings when things are really about to go seriously wrong. Anyway, this article doesn’t have all the answers, only clues, but here are a few:

• energy and food costs – this is fairly obvious, although short-term noise may obscure any useful predictive ability
• labor costs – tells us something about demographics and population structure
• public debt servicing costs – maybe a more useful thing to think about than just the size of the debt or deficit, because it tells us something about the size of the debt, interest rates, and inflation together, and it can be compared to tax revenues and/or a society’s overall productive capacity. This in turn tells us something about limits to (economic) growth and the ability of a society to weather potential shocks.
• military spending on conventional and unconventional weapons – not exactly public information, but there are some sources out there, and this tells us something both about overall global risk and about government’s priorities and ability to solve other problems
• climate change adaptation and mitigation spending, and gap between actual spending and what is needed to meet the agreed targets – not sure exactly how to measure this, but people must be trying. We could compare this spending with measured results to get some sense of efficiency, and again it tells us something about government priorities and ability to solve long-term problems. Roubini compares climate spending to reconstruction after a war, which I find interesting: “Though a surge of investment in reconstruction can produce an economic expansion, the country is still poorer for having lost a large share of its wealth. The same is true of climate investments. A significant share of the existing capital stock will have to be replaced, either because it has become obsolete or because it has been destroyed by climate-driven events.”
• “unfunded implicit liabilities” to deal with pandemic preparedness. Again, seems hard to measure but people are undoubtedly trying.
• “To prevent populist regimes from coming to power and pursuing reckless, unsustainable economic policies, liberal democracies will need to spend heavily to reinforce their social safety nets – as many are already doing.” Well, not the U.S. so much. At least we are not doubling down on this, and the political cost of advocating it seems high while opposing it seems to appeal to many voters.
• Retirement pension and health care spending, actual and estimated gap with what is needed.
• long-term government bond rates, and “risk premia on public bonds” – tells us something about perceived risk that a government can keep up with its obligations long-term
• mix of foreign currency reserves held by governments – somewhat obscure, but again a measure of risk that governments can meet their obligations and solve their societal problems
• We can always measure fun things like poverty, inequality, and migration, and of course “stagflation” which I would define as real GDP growth net of inflation.

Taken together, what all this suggests to me is an analysis of government budgets, financial markets, and some demographic/migration data to see where various governments’ priorities lie relative to what their priorities probably should be to successfully address long-term challenges, and their likely ability to bounce back from various types and magnitudes of shock. You could probably develop some kind of risk index at the national and global levels based on this. And then what would you do with it? If you were a rational government, you could choose policies that reduce it. Maybe you turn everything over to the AIs and ask them to figure it out.