The world is in a panic, trying to respond to the financial tsunami put in motion by the collapse of the financial system in the US and other countries. It has been called the first depression since the 1930s. Although the US government passed a US$850 billion rescue package on Sept. 26, it still isn’t enough to revive the US economy.
A CNN report said that 59 percent of respondents to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll believed we are facing a global recession. On Oct. 8, the G7 financial heads simultaneously announced they were drastically cutting interest rates, while the UK government announced a £50 billion (US$86 billion) emergency bank bail-out.
The effects of this financial crisis, which were initially limited to the parts of the securities and financial sectors affected by the US subprime crisis, have now spilled into international real estate markets as well as US commercial real estate and high-tech manufacturing.
Internationally, it is even more worrying, as it will have an impact on consumer demand on a national or even regional level. Once consumption shrinks, we can expect the global economy to take a heavy blow.
It is frightening to see how Iceland, a Nordic country praised as one of the more exceptional emerging economies, a few days ago declared it was on the verge of bankruptcy — the first sovereign country to raise a warning as a result of the financial crisis.
This is no longer a matter concerning only individual manufacturers or industries.
Most problems are still restricted to the securities markets and the financial industry. All rescue plans and measures, or interest and exchange rate adjustments, have been aimed at saving financial institutions and guaranteeing depositors.
The fact of the matter is the third wave of the global economic crisis is gathering, as steeply rising unemployment rates are beginning to interact with another wave of inflation set in motion by sharp wage adjustments around the world.
Global inflationary pressures — big news for almost a year — have shown signs of abating in the past two weeks as oil, food and metal prices have stabilized, but sharply rising risk during the third quarter is now pushing these pressures toward a second peak.
The risks for the real economy brought by the explosion in metal, oil and food prices early this year has instantly been transformed into a political stability crisis in newly developing countries. This will of course have a substantial impact on the development of newly industrialized countries.
By the end of the second quarter, the prices of several key products had slowed. As we entered the third quarter, workers in different countries felt the sharp increase in cost of living and demanded wage hikes that had been frozen for a long time.
This set off a second wave of global inflationary pressures and it is estimated that global inflation will increase by more than 6 percent as a result.
The central banks in several emerging economies have taken anti-inflationary measures, mainly by restricting the money supply, which immediately resulted in flagging confidence and slowing exports. The central banks in many advanced countries, including Taiwan, had to deal with a different policy problem: Relaxed policies aimed at stimulating export confidence created new inflationary pressures. In microeconomic terms, the greatest impact came from sharply rising unemployment figures, reaching almost 7 percent, which created three new global economic risks.
First, the risk that “Chindia” will not be able to sustain their economic prosperity. An analysis by the Economist Intelligence Unit believes that China’s financial service industry policies are distorted, which has resulted in overinvestment in China’s real estate industry and basic raw materials sector.
The extension has resulted in large amounts of bad debt and failed investments, which may implicate China’s economy as a whole.
India has a big problem with a dangerously overheated economy. The Chinese economy is expected to experience several consecutive years of slowing growth, while India is running the risk of bursting the growing economic bubble. The development of these two countries will also crowd out Asian economic growth.
In addition, the explosive growth of international commodity prices has had an impact on the speed of international economic growth, while at the same time destroying profit prospects for countries exporting staple products.
This aspect of China’s and India’s problems are particularly serious.
Second, a dangerous trend exists with the appearance of new trade protectionism. An increasing number of international conflicts over unfair competition resulting from asymmetric labor costs and exceptionally undervalued exchange rates have destroyed the global trade order.
Third, the risk exists that regional political and economic conflicts will be expanded. The conflicts between Iraq and Iran and the US and Israel have been a major factor in global oil price instability.
Spreading terrorist activities and increased border security and border controls are serious threats to international investments and trade developments, as well as to the cross-border movement of human resources and capital.
The development of these negative situations and their possible extended impact are almost unbearable to a Taiwanese economy that is highly dependent on external trade. The government should immediately give up any thought of the economy taking a turn for the better in the fourth quarter and instead prepare for the possibility of three to five years of economic difficulties.
The government and the private sector need a quick and ruthless plan to stabilize and revive the situation. What are these policies?
Bert Lim is president of World Economics Society (WES) and director of the WES Lim Institute for Public Policy Study.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did