Last week, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and American International Group (AIG) ran into severe problems paying off their debts, which pushed Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy, compelled Merrill Lynch to sell itself on the cheap, and led to a takeover of AIG by the US government. It was the tensest week in financial markets since the start of the subprime mortgage crisis last year.
The US Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board came up with an emergency plan to the tune of US$700 billion. The plan was sent to Congress, with a request for urgent legislation authorizing the Treasury to purchase toxic mortgage-related assets from financial institutions on Wall Street.
This was one of the biggest instances of government market intervention in history. Prior to this, it would have been inconceivable for the US, a country that strongly believes that individuals are responsible for their own misfortunes, to go to such lengths.
Even more ironic was the fact that it was Wall Street — perhaps the strongest believer in laissez-faire market economics and Darwinian finances — that was unable to take responsibility for its own actions.
Over the past 30 years, these “fittest” market economists have used their strong political influence to push other countries toward laissez-faire market economics, calling on governments to loosen financial restrictions and in the process opening up more economies to severe competition on the heels of rapid international capital flows — all in the name of efficiency.
However, after the ongoing financial crisis reared its ugly head, we were shown that loosening financial restrictions does not actually improve transparency in market information, nor does it allow for the most effective allocation of resources.
The only thing the loosening of restrictions accomplished was to allow financial institutions on Wall Street to play their money games. And the more they gambled, the greater their appetite became for risk and profit-taking.
In the past, the destructive behavior of these gamblers had a negative influence on the economies of other countries, but things have now swung around and their actions are starting to hurt the US economy.
The US$700 billion debt issue is equal to what the US has spent on its war in Iraq. In simpler terms, it is the same as asking every US citizen to pay US$2,000 to help clean up the mess created by Wall Street investors.
The US government’s plan is clearly aimed at “taking from the poor and giving to the rich,” but everybody has been discouraged from saying anything against it, for opposing something that could potentially help stabilize the market is bound to attract opprobrium.
The plan sought to convince the market that the Treasury Department will take on the bad assets of the main US financial institutions to help them regain the confidence of investors while escaping the vicious cycle that has gripped house prices and the financial market since the suprime mortgage crisis began.
Judging from stock market reactions around the world, the plan seemed to have restored some confidence — until the US House of Representatives defeated the plan on Monday, to which global markets reacted negatively.
For Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, this is a challenge he cannot afford to miss. If a revised plan — and we can expect one will be proposed — succeeds, the US financial market will avert disaster and the economy will avoid recession. The quicker the housing market and prices stabilize, the quicker the bad assets taken over by the state can be sold off at a better price, thereby lowering US government debt.
If the revised plan fails, not only will confidence in the financial market drop even further, but it could lead to a total loss of confidence in the US government. If this came about, investors around the world would be prompted to rid themselves of their US stocks and currency and the world economy would enter a long period of panic and recession.
One could say that this huge market rescue saga is a matter of Wall Street blackmailing the US government and the US government taking the US public and the rest of the world hostage. Ironically, we must pray hard that their attempt at blackmail and hostage-taking succeeds.
Tao Yi-feng is an associate professor of political science at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
RSS