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
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS