In a recent interview, US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner laid out his view of the nature of world economic growth and the role of the US financial sector. It is a deeply disturbing vision, one that amounts to a huge, uninformed gamble with the future of the US economy — and that suggests that Geithner remains the senior public official worldwide who is most in thrall to the self-serving ideology of big banks.
Geithner says the world will now experience a major “financial deepening,” owing to growing demand in emerging markets for financial products and services. He is thinking, of course, of “middle income” countries like India, China and Brazil. And he is right to emphasize that all have made terrific progress and now offer great opportunities for the rising middle class, which wants to accumulate savings, borrow more easily (for productive investment, home purchases, education, etc) and, more generally, smooth out consumption.
However, Geithner then takes a leap. He wants US banks to take the lead in these countries’ financial development. His words are worth quoting at length.
“I don’t have any enthusiasm for … trying to shrink the relative importance of the financial system in our economy as a test of reform, because we have to think about the fact that we operate in the broader world … It’s the same thing for Microsoft or anything else. We want US firms to benefit from that … Now, financial firms are different because of the risk, but you can contain that through regulation,” he said.
There are three serious problems with this view. First, Geithner ignores everything that we know about the pattern of financial development around the world. It is very rare for financial systems to develop without major crises. In fact, experience in recent decades confirms what should have been obvious from previous centuries: As countries grow and accumulate savings, they become increasingly prone to financial collapse.
Given Geithner’s extensive international crisis-fighting experience at the US Treasury, the IMF and the New York Federal Reserve, his current naivete on this point is simply stunning.
Second, Geithner assumes that risks at the largest US firms can be contained through regulation, when all our knowledge points directly to the contrary. Even the strongest supporters of the Dodd-Frank reform legislation emphasize that it only went part way toward reducing the incentives for major financial institutions to take big risks. Looking at the combined effect of the new law, plus the weak additional capital requirements agreed under Basel III and the hands-off approach already signaled by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (which Geithner chairs), it is hard to believe that anything has really improved.
In fact, given that our largest banks are now undoubtedly too big to fail, they have even more incentive to increase their debt levels relative to their equity. Higher leverage increases their payoffs when times are good — as executives and traders are paid based on their “return on equity.”
When times are bad, for example in a crisis episode, losses are transferred to creditors. If those creditor losses are large and spread so as to undermine the broader financial system, pressure for a government bailout will mount. Bankers get the upside and taxpayers (and people laid off as credit is disrupted) get the downside.
The US financial sector went mad for high-risk loans to emerging markets during the 1970s — arguing that this was the new frontier. This loan portfolio blew up in the debt crisis of 1982. A version of the same thoughtless cross-border lending is again underway, extolled by leading financial sector executives (eg, Jamie Dimon from JPMorgan Chase) — who have apparently persuaded Geithner to tag along intellectually.
Third, Geithner completely overlooks what has brought significant parts of Europe to its economic knees. He should spend more time with the authorities in Iceland or Ireland or Switzerland, countries where “financial globalization” allowed banks to become big relative to the economy.
In Iceland, the three largest banks built global balance sheets that were between 11 and 13 times the size of the economy. Then they collapsed.
In Ireland, the three largest banks went crazy for commercial real estate — financed by large-scale borrowing from other eurozone countries (including Germany). The politicians looked the other way — or were paid off, some claim — while these banks built balance sheets valued at twice the Irish GDP. Then they collapsed, causing enormous damage to the government’s own solvency.
In Switzerland, the two largest banks (UBS and Credit Suisse) had a combined balance sheet in the fall of 2008 of about 8 times Swiss GDP — mostly based on their global activities. Mortgage traders in London — not many of whom were Swiss — took on enormous risks that almost brought down UBS. The Swiss government could afford the bailout, just. And now the Swiss National Bank is moving in the exact opposite direction to Geithner — they are pushing these big banks to become smaller and to finance more of their activities with equity, rather than debt.
Geithner is a very smart and experienced public servant. His views concerning the future of finance will help shape what happens. And that is why we are headed for trouble.
Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, is co-founder of BaselineScenario.com, a professor at MIT Sloan and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers