Congratulations to Ben Bernanke, Douglas Diamond and Philip Dybvig, this year’s Nobel laureates in the Economic Sciences. As the citation reads, the trio have “significantly improved our understanding of the role of banks in the economy, particularly during financial crises.”
Few of us in life, and even fewer economists, get to put their work into practice on the largest stage as Bernanke did in 2008. The former chair of the US Federal Reserve was not merely debating hypotheticals with his graduate students.
He made critical decisions under the most intense pressure. There is no doubt that his understanding of the precise nature of the crisis saved the global financial system in 2008.
Keeping the credit creation process intact by bailing out large US banks was a critical element in fostering the subsequent recovery. Unlike many of his peers, Bernanke grasped what was at stake. As his citation notes, bank collapses involve losing valuable information about borrowers that cannot be recreated quickly. The credit creation process is best handled by banks, but when they are weighed down by nonperforming loans and a lack of capital, they cannot perform that vital role.
In Europe, measures to support the banking sector were less structured and comprehensive, with the emphasis as much on “punishment” of those perceived to have been culpable for the crisis. As a consequence, Europe’s undercapitalized banks played no useful role in the post-crisis recovery. Instead, many countries remained in or near recession, ultimately leading to a series of sovereign crises, the echoes of which are still apparent today.
Another way of looking at the US banking recovery compared with that in Europe is to plot the KBW Bank Index, which has risen 65 percent since 2008, against its nearest European equivalent, the Euro Stoxx Bank Index, which, almost 15 years later, is still more than 70 percent below its pre-crisis level.
Despite their relative inaction, Europe’s banks and governments effectively got a free ride from Bernanke’s swift action. Had the US not acted, a global systemic collapse would have been a very strong possibility.
There is ultimately no escaping the fact that the 2008 crisis was in large part driven by policymakers and economists — in Bernanke’s case, it was one and the same — placing too much faith in the banking system’s ability to manage credit creation unburdened by oversight. Bernanke was at the vanguard of that movement.
This undue confidence in one of the most basic principles of market efficiency has been a factor in many celebrated economics Nobels. Gary Becker, the 1992 winner, argued vociferously that the labor market was so efficient that no action was required against racist employers because market forces alone would resolve the issue by driving them out of business. That argument has not stood the test of time.
Similarly, Franco Modigliani, who won his economics Nobel in 1985, and Merton Miller, who won in 1990, did valuable work on the capital structure of the firm.
Yet their simplifying assumptions regarding the cost of bankruptcy did much to normalize high levels of corporate debt and leverage. This was one of the reasons macroeconomists were so sanguine as debt spiraled ahead of the 2008 meltdown.
The timing of this year’s Nobel award is notable. It comes at a moment when the world is struggling with the consequences of extreme monetary intervention of the type that accompanied the bank bailouts. We might have made some progress since 2008 in understanding the need for pragmatic bank regulation, but we are no closer to recognizing that the remedy to a crisis often sows the seeds for the next calamity.
Indeed, the financial sector is increasingly the cause of our problems rather than a hapless victim of the economy. That involves the economists who run the show.
Economics has a history of producing Nobel laureates who present strong insights while also failing to grasp the practical realities and consequences of their findings. So, well done to Bernanke and his fellow winners.
However, we should not forget that the former US Federal Reserve chair was at least partly to blame for the conditions that led to financial fragility in the early 2000s in the first place.
It would be harsh to say he was a firefighter who put out his own fire. Nevertheless, regarding the merit of the award, Friedrich Hayek, the 1974 winner, probably put it best: The Nobel prize “confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.”
Stuart Trow is cohost of Money, Money, Money on Switch Radio and author of The Bluffer’s Guide to Economics. Previously, he was a strategist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Two major Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-People’s Liberation Army (PLA) power demonstrations in November 2024 highlight the urgency for Taiwan to pursue a military buildup and deterrence agenda that can take back control of its destiny. First, the CCP-PLA’s planned future for Taiwan of war, bloody suppression, and use as a base for regional aggression was foreshadowed by the 9th and largest PLA-Russia Joint Bomber Exercise of Nov. 29 and 30. It was double that of previous bomber exercises, with both days featuring combined combat strike groups of PLA Air Force and Russian bombers escorted by PLAAF and Russian fighters, airborne early warning
For three years and three months, Taiwan’s bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has remained stalled. On Nov. 29, members meeting in Vancouver agreed to establish a working group for Costa Rica’s entry — the fifth applicant in line — but not for Taiwan. As Taiwan’s prospects for CPTPP membership fade due to “politically sensitive issues,” what strategy should it adopt to overcome this politically motivated economic exclusion? The situation is not entirely dim; these challenges offer an opportunity to reimagine the export-driven country’s international trade strategy. Following the US’ withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Since the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation has taken Taiwanese students to visit China and invited Chinese students to Taiwan. Ma calls those activities “cross-strait exchanges,” yet the trips completely avoid topics prohibited by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), such as democracy, freedom and human rights — all of which are universal values. During the foundation’s most recent Chinese student tour group, a Fudan University student used terms such as “China, Taipei” and “the motherland” when discussing Taiwan’s recent baseball victory. The group’s visit to Zhongshan Girls’ High School also received prominent coverage in
Late on Tuesday evening, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law. A BBC analysis cited as reasons the opposition parties’ majority in the National Assembly, their continued boycott of the national budget and the impeachment of key officials and prosecutors, leading to frequent government gridlock. During the years that Taiwan and South Korea traveled the road to democratization, our countries hit many potholes. Taiwan cannot return to the Martial Law era. Despite the similarities in our authoritarian past, Yoon’s political travails are far removed from the issues Taiwan faces. Yoon’s actions are a wake-up call to the world about
RSS