The “F word” is back. Back in the financial markets, back in the conclaves of central bank governors, back among the manufacturers and the high-street retailers. The four-letter word is fear.
Earlier this year, few imagined that we would be approaching the third anniversary of Lehman Brothers’ collapse on Sept. 15 with such a sense of unease. The belief was that economic recovery was well enough embedded for central banks to start raising interest rates and for finance ministries to crack on with the job of reducing budget deficits.
The mood today is different. US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said the US central bank would discuss possible ways to stimulate growth when it meets next month. The Bank of England appears to be heading in a similar direction. There is anxiety at the IMF that blanket austerity will tip fragile Western economies back into recession. Concerns are once again being expressed about the health of the banks, about the US’ national debt and, above all, about whether the eurozone can survive its current crisis intact.
Illustration: mountain people
Standard Chartered and HSBC were the two UK-based banks to bounce back from the first financial crisis, partly because their global reach allowed them to benefit from Asia’s rapid recovery.
This, though, is how the chief economists at the two banks see things: “America is drowning in debt, Europe is imploding as problems in the euro area intensify, while, in contrast, Asia’s economy is cooling, as growth rates moderate from a strong to a solid pace,” Gerard Lyons at Standard Chartered says.
Putting the possibility of a US recession as high as 2-1 and of an eventual euro crisis as high as 50-50, Lyons adds: “It should be little surprise that there is increased uncertainty and heightened risk aversion across financial markets.”
Stephen King at HSBC describes the world as a “frozen economic tundra,” with the power of central bankers to influence events on the wane.
“After the Great Recession, there has sadly been no ‘Great Recovery,’” he says.
He too is unsurprised that investors are rushing for the exit, given the bickering between Democrats and Republicans on how to tackle the US budget problems and the inability of Europe’s politicians to sort out the euro.
This is not how it was supposed to be. It took time for policymakers to comprehend the enormity of the shock administered to the global economy by the collapse of the US housing market, but once the penny dropped in the autumn of 2008, they were at pains to show that lessons had been learned from the 1930s. Banks were recapitalized to prevent them from going bust, interest rates were slashed, money was created, public spending was increased.
To widespread relief, there was no second Great Depression. Unemployment in the US rose to almost 10 percent, but not the 25 percent seen in the 1930s. Industrial production and international trade started to pick up in the spring of 2009. By and large, countries resisted the temptations of protectionism.
Over time, however, it has become clear that the recovery has been both slow and costly. If it is aborted, the risk is that the global economy will return to where this all started in 2007, with another crisis in the banking system.
The recovery has been slow because the crisis was caused by over-indebtedness among private individuals and banks. Both, in the jargon of the markets, were over-leveraged: They had borrowed an awful lot of money, in other words, in anticipation of asset prices going up and up. When the bubbles burst, households and banks realized how exposed they were. As a result, they started to pay off their debts and even when the cost of borrowing came down to virtually zero, the demand for credit remained weak.
“The ambient noise of de-leveraging is now deafening,” King says.
However, Western economies have become so dependent on debt-driven growth in the good years that they are finding the sobering-up process painful. As things stand, it will take the UK longer to return to pre-recession levels of output than it did in the 1930s.
What is more, this lackluster recovery has not come cheap. As private demand fell, governments stepped up their spending. They cranked up the electronic printing presses, they bought shares in banks and they allowed budget deficits to balloon, gambling that any damage to the public finances would be temporary. Again, things have hardly gone according to plan. Quantitative easing has proved a double-edged sword: It has flooded financial markets with cash and may well have underpinned activity, but it has also pushed up commodity prices, leading to higher inflation and a squeeze on real incomes that has held back recovery.
By in effect nationalizing a good chunk of the debts accumulated by the private sector, Western governments have now raised concerns about their own solvency. The US has seen its credit rating downgraded; Europe’s problems are even more acute after bailouts for Greece (twice), Ireland and Portugal, followed in the past month by emergency action by the European Central Bank to drive down the interest rate on Italian and Spanish bonds.
Financial markets want to believe the “soft landing” scenario, but somehow cannot quite bring themselves to do so. The fear comes from the knowledge that commercial banks in Europe are up to their eyeballs in sovereign debt from the weaker peripheral countries, so a default would trigger a feedback loop to the financial system.
Banks have more capital than they had three years ago and are less heavily leveraged. Yet there are doubts about whether they could survive a double-dip recession. And until consumers are spending more freely, there will be a temptation for companies to hoard their cash rather than invest it.
Economic downturns usually go through five distinct phases: bubble, denial, acceptance, panic and recovery. This fifth phase officially started two-and-a-half years ago, but the drip-drip of disappointing news from around the world in recent weeks has made financial markets highly averse to taking risks. Higher unemployment, slower growth and currency tensions have all prompted a rush for safe havens.
The markets are now wondering whether this is one of the rare crises that has a sixth phase: relapse. At root, the suspicion is that the problems that caused the crisis in the first place have not been solved, that politicians are offering weak leadership and that the next few months could see the start of phase two of the Great Contraction.
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry