Download An Overview of Causes for the Financial Crisis and

JOURNAL OF CHINESE ECONOMICS, 2015 Vol. 3. No. 1, pp 58-69
http://journals.sfu.ca/nwchp/index.php/journal An Overview of Causes for the Financial Crisis and
Implications: from the Perspective of China
Yufei Bai1 Yijiao Liu2 Xiaoyu Du3 and Zejing Li4
Abstract: Although it has been over six years since the latest financial crisis broke
out, studies on its causes are still prevalent in Chinese academia. This paper reviews
related literature and categorizes the discussed causes into five types, namely, the
Theory of Overproduction, the Theory of Economic Imbalances, the Theory of
Improper Monetary Policy, the Neo-liberalism View on Government and the Theory
of Forces of Political Factors. Study on these causes brings about the following
implications: socialism will eventually replace capitalism, which urges us to adhere to
socialism with Chinese characteristics; with an objective cognition of the prevailing
international currency system, we should actively push forward the process of RMB
internationalization; the relationship between virtual economy and real economy
should be correctly addressed, and the transformation of the economic development
pattern should be accelerated.
Keywords: financial crisis, Theory of Overproduction, Theory of Economic
Imbalances, Theory of Improper Monetary Policy, Neo-liberalism View
on Government, Theory of Forces of Political Factors.
JEL Classification: E52, E69, F39, G01
1. Introduction
Marked by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, a giant U.S. investment bank, a
subprime crisis originated from the U.S. rapidly spread to the globe, and eventually
spawned a once-in-a-century international financial crisis. There has already been a
tremendous amount of relevant literature in Chinese academia since its explosion.
This paper attempts to make a review of discussions on causes of the crisis in an effort
to understand more comprehensively, systematically and deeply this round of
financial crisis, thereby better promoting the constant, robust and fast development of
Chinese economy in the long run with the lessons drawn. Both the angles from which
Chinese scholars study causes of the financial crisis and their corresponding
conclusions are different and they can be divided into five types in general.
2．The Theory of Overproduction
The explosion of the financial crisis exerted serious impacts on the economic
development and people’s livelihood in all countries, which triggered profound
1
2
3
4
Associate Professor of Finance, Associate Dean of the School of Economics、Trade and Event Management,
Beijing International Studies University, Beijing, China. Email: [email protected].
Lecturer, the School of Economics、Trade and Event Management, Beijing International Studies University.
The School of Economics、Trade and Event Management, Beijing International Studies University
Postgraduate, the School of Economics、Trade and Event Management, Beijing International Studies University.
An Overview of Causes for the Financial Crisis and Implications
59
reflection on the capitalist mode of production. Scholars who believe in the theory of
overproduction hold the opinion that the crisis was caused by the basic conflict in the
capitalist system, that is, the conflict between production socialization and the
capitalistic private ownership of production means. Concrete manifestations of this
conflict are overproduction and deficiency in effective demand, in other words, the
excessive supply of real estates and inability of consumers to pay.
Hu and Wei (2009) pointed out that this crisis had never gone beyond Marx’s
theoretical logic on economic crises. It was nothing but the contradiction of the
capitalist mode of production, which is precisely the conflict between the tendency
towards infinite enlargement of production and the deficiency in demand, that led to
the explosion of this overproduction crisis --- in order to help capitalists solve the
problem of overproduction, bankers designed financial derivatives that transcended
the real products, luring consumers to consume beyond their ability, and stretching the
whole credit chain, which buried hidden troubles of chain reactions in later financial
crisis.
Han and Li (2011) stated that the fuse of this crisis was the price plunge caused
by relative surplus of the real estate market, and that the fundamental reason why the
subprime crisis evolved into a financial crisis that went global resides in capital’s
greedy and cross-border pursuit of profits. Able to rely on the global market, capitalist
countries avail themselves of virtual capitals as the tool to break the restriction in
production, leading to a widespread credit expansion and overproduction, which
finally resulted in the global crisis.
Zhang and Li (2009) stressed that the most direct reason of the crisis was the
surplus of virtual capital commodities led by the combination of excessive speculation
and credit expansion. However, with the burst of price bubbles of virtual capital, the
capacity in consumption and payment of society in capitalist countries had been
struck. Hence, the nature of the crisis changed from independent crisis within the
financial system to a financial crisis preceding the crises of production and business,
and the contradiction of overproduction was then highlighted. Therefore, the
conclusion can be drawn that this crisis was rooted in the fundamental economic
system of capitalism, and it manifested the irremediable institutional defect within the
capitalist system.
Wu and Feng (2012) sketched the explosion chain of the financial crisis as
“insufficient effective demand - overproduction - overdraft consumption - rising
default rate - economic crisis”. They believed that in fear of overproduction, the U.S.
tried to stimulate residents, especially those with low and middle income, to overdraw
by immoderately expanding the consumption credit. When the insolvency of these
debts became overwhelming, the financial chain fractured, the social purchasing
power contracted, the true fact of overproduction was exposed and the crisis came
along. The financial crisis is nothing but a special manifestation of economic crises
after the independence of financial capital from industrial capital, and its essence is
still a crisis of relative overproduction, which was also a positive proof for the
scientific and proactive Marxist theory of economic crises.
Wei and Sun (2011) compared the Great Depression to this financial crisis and
60 Bai, Liu, Du, and Li
found that the Great Depression originated from real economy and was manifested
directly as relative overproduction and under-consumption, whereas this financial
crisis stemmed from the financial area and had an evident symptom of consumer debts
and overconsumption. Different as their generating paths and representations seemed,
they shared the same essence: relative overproduction. Just as Marx said, “The
ultimate reason for all real crises invariably lies in the poverty of the masses and their
restricted consumption. Despite of this, capitalist production drives the productive
forces to extremes, as if nothing but the absolute consuming power of society
constituted their limit.” 5
LIU Shibai (2010) regarded this crisis as a new form of capitalist periodic crises,
the origin of which was still the contradiction in the real economy between the
expanding production capacity and insufficient endogenous demand. The monetary
and credit expansion dominated by the government could certainly create and expand
the short-run demand, but by no means could it eliminate the contradiction between
enlargement in production capacity and deficiency in effective demand, rather, it can
breed an abnormal economic structure with exorbitant financialization and
virtualization, which will cause financial crises.
3.
The Theory of Economic Imbalances
The relationship between economic imbalances and financial crises has always been a
hot topic for scholars and it has been heated again since the financial crisis broke out
in 2008. Among the research, discussions from the perspective of economic
virtualization and drawbacks of international currency system are most representative.
Hou and Leng (2009) analyzed various ratios of the U.S. GDP and found out that
private consumption was its biggest contributor, while most of the private
consumption depended on bank loans, which means “money begets money” was a
pivotal power in the GDP. Judging from this, the American economy had a serious
problem of virtualization. With its successive overexpansion, the virtual economy
became increasingly disconnected with the real economy, and the bubblization of
asset prices grew rapidly, which led to an intensive outburst of systemic risk.
Zhang and Liu (2009) pointed out that the special circulation of economic
operation in the U.S. led to its deindustrialization and virtualization, and that the
divergence of virtual economy from real economy was the essential cause of the crisis.
This was certainly inseparable with current international currency system and the
long-term selfish domestic and foreign policies of the U.S. They illustrated with data
lists that the three pillar industries in post-war America --- automobile, steel and
construction, were no longer brilliant, all replaced by finance, insurance and
real-estate services. Virtual economy had become the core profitable sectors of
America before this crisis erupted. Since the 1990s, on one side, the financial
innovation capitalized the income flows to the greatest extent, bringing about the
inflation of virtual capital and the virtualization of the whole economy; On the other
5
Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 7, published by People’s Publishing House, Beijing, China, 2009,
Page 548.
An Overview of Causes for the Financial Crisis and Implications
61
side, the process of economic virtualization pushed the financial lever to all fields of
the American society, which resulted in the interweaving of various financial levers
and formulated a butterfly effect in the American economic system. Therefore, even if
the subprime crisis had never happened in the U.S., another financial crisis was bound
to take place originating from leveraged cutting-edge financial products.
Huang and Huang (2012) also agreed that the dominance of virtual financial
capital was the root cause for the international financial crisis. They held that for the
latest thirty years, there had been a number of factors boosting the rapid inflation of
virtual financial capital, and capitalism had entered a stage of virtual financial
capitalism. The dominance of virtual financial capitalism greatly intensified the basic
contradiction of capitalism so that the outburst of the financial crisis would
consequently bring enormous harm to the entire society.
Chen and Wang (2011) pointed out that only when virtual economy and real
economy match each other can market economy develop harmoniously. But before
the crisis, the U.S. highly relied on virtual capital for circulatory earnings, marked by
the high degree of bubblization of asset prices and the serious departure of virtual
economy from real economy. [10] Since the 1980s, the U.S. had been transferring the
manufacturing sectors in real economy overseas through industrial restructuring and
upgrading. At the same time, the development of financial derivatives has enjoyed
powerful support at home, which led to a successive rise of economic virtualization.
This economic layout, in which virtual economy got excessively disconnected with
real economy and the level of virtualization went too high, was liable to collapse once
a sign of trouble appeared.
Financial crises, economic imbalances and international currency system are
closely interconnected with each other. The global financial crisis caused by the U.S.
subprime crisis put in question again the status of the U.S. dollar as the international
central currency, and voices calling for reforming the international currency system
became louder and louder.
Hua and Liu (2008) attributed this international financial crisis to the lack of
international currency system after the collapse of the gold standard system. In fact,
local financial crises had never ceased ever since the Bretton Woods System broke up.
Luckily, before the year 2000, as investment opportunities could still be located in
global real economy for the excess supply of U.S. dollars, the problem of excess
liquidity seemed not too serious. Nonetheless, with the collapse of the NASDAQ
Stock Market in 2000, global opportunities for industrial investment tended to vanish.
Counter-cyclical expansionary policy mix of the U.S. even aggravated the problems
of dollar glut and global liquidity excess, which was rapidly followed by asset price
bubbles and the international financial crisis.
Shi and Zhao (2011) held the opinion that defects of the Jamaica system was the
hotbed for the international financial crisis. Under the Jamaica system, the U.S.
dollar was disconnected with gold and the issuing of dollars was no longer under
restriction. All countries wished to have more dollars reserved to stabilize the foreign
exchange market. As a result of such internal reason and external demand, the Federal
Reserve issued too many dollars. It was through the current account deficit and capital
62 Bai, Liu, Du, and Li
account surplus that the U.S. maintained its dollar circulation. In order to ensure the
backflow of U.S. dollars, the financial assets of the U.S. should possess higher
investment value than those of any other country. For this purpose, the U.S. financial
market kept creating new financial products for global investors. While the prices of
financial products were continuously pushed up, the finance sector was marching
away from the normal track of economic development, and bubblization kept
increasing. When the bubbles burst, the U.S. and its partner countries that used U.S.
dollars were all affected.
Based on the process of subprime mortgages’ occurrence and evolution, Zhu
(2010) summarized that the source of the international financial crisis was the
imbalance in global economic structure under “dollar circumfluence”. Dollars
circumfluence under the dollar-based system constantly aggravated three types of
imbalances in the U.S. society --- de-industrialization, coexistence of trade deficit,
fiscal deficit and savings deficit, negative NIIP (Net International Investment Position)
and positive FDI of equal values with the trade deficit, thereby incurring a passive
imbalance of world economy and the global liquidity excess as well. Losses expanded
to the whole financial markets the moment that the U.S. subprime mortgages market
went wrong. In the wake of a sharp fall of foreign countries’ confidence in U.S.
dollars, the financial crisis in the U.S. infected other countries along the negative
direction of dollars circumfluence, thereby causing the global financial crisis and
economic recession.
Wang and Fan (2011) analyzed the balance of payment under current
international reserve currency system and indicated that the currency system was not
only an important cause of global economic imbalance, but also one of the causes of
the financial crises that had frequently occurred during the past thirty years. They
established an N-country balance of payment currency analytical framework, which
was constrained by the principle that the sum of net export and net capital of the
reserve currency country and the non-reserve currency countries both equaled zero,
and that sovereign currency served as the international reserve currency. They found
that under the international currency system in which sovereign currency served as the
international reserve currency, any efforts to thoroughly solve the problem of
long-term trade deficit and global imbalance in the reserve currency country by
exchange rate policies was invalid. Whatever policies the reserve currency country
chose or had to choose, external surplus, deficit or balance, financial crises and global
economic instability were inevitable.
4.
The Theory of Improper Monetary Policy
The explosion of the financial crisis had once pushed the Federal Reserve and
Greenspan, who had already retired after winning merit, to the forefront. The New
York Times named Greenspan “Mr. Bubble” and said that the Fed, led by him, should
be responsible for this crisis, since continuous monetary ease had made undeniable
contribution to real estate bubbles.
Lu and Liu (2009) systematically analyzed the logical relationship between the
An Overview of Causes for the Financial Crisis and Implications
63
currency policy of the Fed and the subprime crisis, and came to a conclusion that the
mistake of the monetary policy did not lie in cutting the interest rate when the
macro-economy turned down, but lie in the large extent of the cuts. The empirical
research showed that in an ultra-loose monetary policy environment, the short-term
interest rates had a remarkable correlation with real house prices and extra-long-term
increase in new houses building as well, in other words, the Fed’s ultra-loose
monetary policy had a significant contribution to real estate bubbles in the U.S.
He (2008) regarded the financial crisis as a heritage of the Greenspan era.
Greenspan had successfully come through a series of crises during his nineteen years’
control over the Fed. But he had made the very same mistake in each crisis that the
interest rates were cut too much and the low interest rates lasted too long. After the
crash of the NASDAQ Internet bubble, Greenspan continued the approach of both
sharply cutting the interest rate and keeping it at a low level over quite a long time to
stimulate the U.S. economy, as well as supporting the non-fixed interest rate loans
developed by home finance agencies specifically for consumers with low income and
low credit ratings, believing that the borrowers could save a lot of money under the
circumstance of interest reduction. However, default rates soared when house prices
fell and homeowners realized that their loans had well outnumbered the value of their
houses.
Zhang (2009) would rather say that the financial crisis was the failure of
government monetary policy than to say it was the failure of the market. Based on the
Business Cycle Theory of the Austrian School, this financial crisis and the Great
Depression had little difference, both of which were caused by the central bank. The
trigger of the crisis was that people who were tempted by the low interest rates and
real estate bubbles borrowed money to buy houses when they were not supposed to.
The origin of such phenomenon was exactly the wrong monetary policy. When the
interest rate signal was distorted by the central bank, the pricing mechanisms went out
of order for both financial assets and physical assets, and the whole economy
accordingly fell into disorder.
Chang (2010) agreed that this crisis was rooted to a large extent in the mistake of
the monetary policy. The Fed initiated a long-term low interest rate policy in 2001,
which directly generated asset price bubbles and the credit boom. It became the key
policy which incurred the crisis and after that, stock and real estate bubbles broke
down when the Fed had to stop monetary expansion due to the pressure of inflation,
and the crisis then started.
5.
The Neo-liberalism View on Government
The stagflation in 1970s offered an invaluable opportunity for the neo-liberalism to
step onto the historical stage, which was then still on the edge. Marked by Thatcher
New Deal and Reagan Revolution, neo-liberalism gradually became the mainstream
ideology of economics and occupied a leading position for decades. The 1994
Mexican financial crisis and the 1998 Asian financial crisis first revealed the inherent
disadvantages and intrinsic defects of the neo-liberalism view on government. This
64 Bai, Liu, Du, and Li
round of global financial crisis caused by the subprime crisis partly declared the
failure of the economic theory of neo-liberalism, especially the ideological trend and
policy propositions of neo-liberalism.
Zhou (2009) presented neo-liberalism’s practices in the U.S., and considered this
crisis as the consequence of the U.S. government’s implementation, even to the
extreme, of neo-liberalism policies over decades. The multi-effects of neo-liberalism’s
emphasis on consumption, objection to government intervention in the labor market,
and less government adjustment on income distribution, gradually created the
situation of abnormal high level of the U.S. domestic demand and lasting stagnancy of
increase in resident income. Under the overall background of financial deregulation,
consumers flocked into the housing market through mortgage lending despite the fact
that they had little ability to repay, exaggerating the U.S. real estate bubbles and
ultimately brought on the crisis.
Zhang and Wang (2009) blamed this financial crisis on the consumption mode,
financial liberalization, capital financialization, and the neo-liberalist lifestyle of the
Americans, which were all guided by the neo-liberalist economic policies. The
explosion of the financial crisis was a strong proof of the disadvantages of
neo-liberalism. It was unsustainable, considering the harm of this crisis.
Nie (2012) thought that the negative and conservative view on government
pursued by neo-liberalism, which was called “small government, big society”, was
one of the critical reasons why the financial market got out of control and caused the
global economic crisis. When human stepped into an era of a risky society, it became
an unavoidable necessity to pay close attention to and respond to risks. Yet the
neo-liberalism’s policy claim of passive inaction and laissez faire was incapable of
responding to uncertain risks to meet the basic requirement of a risky society. Passive
inaction made the government lack of valid forecast and judgment of risks and unable
to get prepared before the risks appeared, while laissez faire made the government
unable to effectively control the risks after their arrival. From this angle, it is rather
fair to say that the neo-liberalism view on government was the initiator of the global
financial crisis.
Tan (2009) ascribed the explosion of financial crisis to the defects of
neo-liberalism. Under the ideology of neo-liberalism, the financial circle held a
prejudice against financial crises and suffered from serious defects with respect to
financial regulation and risk precaution, thereby failing to attach sufficient
significance on and correctly assess the risks that had already been ceaselessly
accumulating even before the crisis, so that the entire circle was caught unprepared by
the eruption of the crisis.
6.
The Theory of Forces of Political Factors
The financial crisis is a political issue as well as an economic issue. It is partial to
concentrate only on one side in the modern world of economic and political
integration.
He and Gao (2011) regarded this financial crisis as a typical political and
An Overview of Causes for the Financial Crisis and Implications
65
institutional crisis, which had an impact with wide scope, long time, and profound
significance. It was rooted in western political system and had gone far beyond the
traditional scope of finance and economy. Questions such as why a wrong policy had
been implemented for so long, why individual greed could evolve into institutional
greed without limitation, and what made capitalist society paralyzed facing the
inherent defects of its economic system, can only be answered from the perspective of
political institution.
Ye (2009) insisted that American hegemony, the two wars and the political
system in the U.S. were the three political factors for the financial crisis. The
essence of this crisis was that the bubble of supremacy fostered the bubble of finance.
It was the U.S. hegemony that had forced other countries to pay for its
overconsumption, while the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the medium and
catalyst for the American hegemony to form the financial crisis. Those two wars
showed to the world the super military power of the U.S. and intensified the aspiration
of investors from all countries to invest in the U.S. and their mindset of speculation.
At the meantime, those two wars affected the U.S. economy by raising the military
expenditure and aggravating the financial burden of the U.S., which had a negative
impact on the economy. The U.S. government tried to stimulate the economy by
continuously cutting the interest rate and issuing bonds, resulting in an unprecedented
liquidity surplus and a mass of financial bubbles, which created an illusion of
prosperity. To depress the bubbles, the Fed had to raise the interest rate. Finally the
bubbles broke down and the financial crisis broke out. Painstakingly, the financial
crisis also revealed the defects of the political system that governors were serving the
interest group. The U.S. government loosed regulation on the financial capital
operation in the Wall Street and allowed its free operation, while those two wars
greatly benefited economically the military and energy groups of the U.S.
Associating not only the economic issues involved in this crisis with political
issues, but also the domestic politics involved in this crisis with international politics,
Wang (2009) found out that during the past thirty years, the U.S. domestic religion
conservatism, neo-conservatism and monopoly consortium closely integrated together
and provided social motivation, ideological motivation and economic motivation for
the U.S. to expand outwards and pursue hegemony. But meanwhile, new
characteristics of the world economy, such as the enhancement of economic
integration and the multi-polarization trend in the structure of economic authorities,
were also challenging the global economic and political order dominated by the
American hegemony. As the lust for hegemony got increasingly stronger while the
cost of maintaining hegemony became increasingly higher, all sorts of conflicts kept
accumulating, and the crisis finally broke out. Accordingly, this crisis was a
centralized release of the intensifying structural contradictions in the existing
international political and economic system.
7.
Implications for China’s economic and social development
Causes of this once-in-a-century financial crisis were exceedingly complex and a deep
66 Bai, Liu, Du, and Li
investigation can provide fundamental implications for China’s economic and social
development.
First of all, socialism will eventually replace capitalism, so we should firmly
adhere to socialism with Chinese characteristics.
The eruption and expansion of the financial crisis again reflected the inherent
defects of capitalism. The basic contradiction of capitalism, disadvantages of its
political system and the limitation of neo-liberalism theories were fully exposed. It
would not be possible that capitalism disappears completely from the stage of history,
just as in the Great Depression of the 1930s, people were convinced that capitalism
would come to an end but it resurrected. But there are ample reasons for us to gain a
clearer knowledge and more comprehensive understanding of the superiority of
socialism, to be more convinced of the historical inevitability that socialism will
replace capitalism, and to adhere more firmly to the road of socialism with Chinese
characteristics.
Second, an objective cognition of international currency system should be
formed and the internationalization of RMB should be actively pushed forward.
The international currency system dominated by the U.S. dollars is an important
pushing force of economic imbalances and financial crises. So an effective
international currency system should be reconstructed to promote the rebalance of the
world economy and to maintain the stability of international finance. Although the
reconstruction will take a long time and the dominance of the U.S. dollars are still
unshakeable for now, a new journey of the international currency system would
definitely be achievable provided that all governments and central banks can
cooperate and pay joint efforts. As a responsible economy, China should also play a
role in this process, which is, to give great impetus to Currency Swap and make RMB
another currency for international settlement and reserve in the world trade and
economic dealings, thereby contributing to the construction of a brand new
international currency system.
Third, the relationship between virtual economy and real economy should be
correctly addressed, and the transformation of the economic development pattern
should be accelerated.
Virtual economy is the product of market economy in a certain stage. The
emergence and development of virtual economy can promote the market economy
only when it is well matched with real economy. If virtual economy inflates
abnormally and deviates severely from real economy, economic instability or
recession will be inevitable. On the contrary, if virtual economy develops too slowly
and cannot keep up with the pace of real economy, it would also turn a drag on the
effective operation of market economy. One important cause of this crisis was that
virtual economy developed too fast in the U.S. and became disconnected with real
economy. Drawing lessons from the crisis, the U.S. government started the policy of
reindustrialization, attempting to regain previous glory of real economy and help
along a harmonious development of real economy and virtual economy. Our virtual
economy suffers a problem too, though different from theirs, which is the incapability
in scale and speed to support the development of real economy. Therefore, it will be
An Overview of Causes for the Financial Crisis and Implications
67
an imperative and urgent mission to emphasize on and buttress the development of
virtual economy for the future operation of our market economy. Admittedly, at the
time we strive to develop virtual economy, we should still make it a priority to
improve our productivity and promote the high-quality growth of real economy by
speeding up the transformation of the economic development pattern. A strong real
economy would lay a solid foundation for the growth of virtual economy, and
moderate guidance for virtual economy would in return boost the transformation of
the economic development pattern, thereby realizing the mutual assistance of virtual
economy and real economy.
68 Bai, Liu, Du, and Li
References
HU Ruochi and WEI Xinghua (2009), “An Analysis on Roots and Enlightenment of
Current Financial Crisis: from A Marxist Perspective”, Contemporary Finance &
Economics (08) (In Chinese).
HAN Keyong and LI Hongliang (2011), “An Analysis on Institutional Inherent
Causes for Current International Finance Crisis”, Asia-Pacific Economic Review
(01) (In Chinese).
Zhang Tongyu and LI Qiang (2009), “On the Origin, Nature and Tendency of Current
International Financial Crisis”, Journal of Renmin University of China (04) (In
Chinese).
WU Ning and FENG Wangzhou (2012), “Capitalism’s Global Financial Crisis and
Marxism”, Studies on Marxism (01) (In Chinese).
WEI Xinghua and SUN Yongmei (2009), “Reflection on Current International
Financial Crisis: Characteristics, Origin, and Responses”, Economic Perspectives
(05) (In Chinese).
LIU Shibai (2010), “On Over-financialization and the U.S. Financial Crisis”,
Economic Perspectives (04) (In Chinese).
HOU Qinglin and LENG Lanlan (2009), “Inevitability of the Virtualization in the
American Economy Causing the Financial Crisis”, Forum of World Economics &
Politics (06) (In Chinese).
ZHANG Yun and LIU Junmin (2009), “Economic Virtualization and Financial Crisis,
Dollar Crisis”, World Economy Study (03) (In Chinese).
HUANG Zhenqi and HUANG Haiyan (2012), “The Governance of Virtual Financial
Capital is the Root Cause of the International Financial Crisis”, Macroeconomics
(08) (In Chinese).
CHEN Linglan and WANG Xuehong (2011), “Causes and Implications of American
Financial Crisis: From the Perspective of Virtual Economy”, Productivity
Research (02) (In Chinese).
HUA Min and LIU Jia (2008), “Causes of the Global Financial Crisis and Responses
of China”, World Economic Outlook (10) (In Chinese).
SHI Li and ZHAO Ziyi (2011), “Origin of the Financial Crisis: the Jamaica Currency
System”, Guizhou Social Sciences (07) (In Chinese).
ZHU Taihui (2010), “Dollar Circumfluence, Global Imbalance in Economic
Structures and the Financial Crisis”, Studies of International Finance (10) (In
Chinese).
WANG Daoping and FAN Xiaoyun (2011), “Should the Current International
Currency System be Blamed for Global Economic Imbalance and the Financial
Crisis?”, The Journal of World Economy (01) (In Chinese).
LU Feng and LIU Liu (2009), “What’s the Faults of Greenspan?—the Relationship
Between the Fed’s Monetary Policy and the Subprime Crisis”, International
Economic Review (01-02) (In Chinese).
HE Fan (2008), “The Financial Crisis is a Heritage of the Greenspan Fed”, Finance &
Economy (11) (In Chinese).
An Overview of Causes for the Financial Crisis and Implications
69
ZHANG Weiying (2009), “Comprehension of the Economic Crisis”, Reading (05) (In
Chinese).
CHANG Zhongze (2010), “Liquidity Shock, Mistaken Monetary Policy and the
Financial Crisis: Reflection on the American Financial Crisis”, Journal of
Financial Research (07) (In Chinese).
ZHOU Zhonglin (2009), “Neo-liberalism and the American Financial Crisis”, On
Economic Problems (09) (In Chinese).
ZHANG Xinping and WANG Zhan (2009), “The American Financial Crisis and
Collapse of Neo-liberalism: From the Perspective of Neo-liberalist Economy and
Society”, Forum of World Economics & Politics (03) (In Chinese).
NIE Shengping (2012), “Neo-liberalist View on Government and the International
Financial Crisis”, Contemporary Finance & Economics (04) (In Chinese).
TAN Yangfang (2009), “The Dilemma of Neo-liberalism and Standpoints of Marxists:
Origin Seeking and Analysis on Current International Financial Crisis”, The
Journal of World Economy (03) (In Chinese).
HE Wenyi and GAO Bo (2011), “Political Reflection on Financial Crises”, CASS
Journal of Political Science (04) (In Chinese).
YE Zicheng (2009), “A Political Science Analysis of the Financial Crisis”, Guizhou
Social Sciences (02) (In Chinese).
WANG Lei (2009), “Deep Causes and Influences of the American Financial Crisis”,
International Data Information (01) (In Chinese).