Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
The Global Economy And Foreign Economic Policy: Where do the Candidates Stand? Today’s Discussion •Historical Context: The Great Depression and American Leadership •The Cause: Absence of a Leader •The Solution: Global Financial Institutions •The United States as Leader •Globalization: Unregulated markets •Today’s Crisis •The candidates and their solutions The Business Cycle •Prosperity •Transition •Trough •Recovery The Big Contradiction • Market Mechanisms vs. • Society’s needs • the market threatens the very essential bonds that hold society together. : Globalization in Early 20th Century: The Prosperity Phase • International Interdependence and the division of labor • Credit and International interdependence • Britain as the world’s creditor and lender of last resort in the “through” phase of the business cycle A bit like the Clinton era……. Growth of production Growth of consumerism The Business Cycle with Britain as Global creditor Britain is The World’s Creditor Great Depression Hidden Problems • Britain no longer able to provide credit • Wages lagged behind profits, so that mass purchasing power could not absorb the vast output that it was technically possible to produce. Crash and Spread • The crash of 1929 and the spread of economic crisis • Britain could no longer be the lender of last resort, the buyer of other’s exports, or infuse credit into the system • The spread of the depression from finance to industry • The internationalization of the crisis Market solution: “purge rottenness out of the system” • After the 1929 crash, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon advised the government to cut spending to balance the budget, and leave desperate banks, businesses, and families to fend for themselves because the market alone would "purge the rottenness out of the system." Government intervenes: SmootHawley Tariff Don’t Trade Protectionism The Global Response: Protectionism • . “every country for itself” • Tariffs and qualitative restrictions • Trade became bilateral • Currency devaluations to stimulate exports The end of international interdependence Protectionism makes things worse….Unemployment 25% Then and Now…. Global Depression • The combined output of the world's seven biggest economies declined nearly 20% from 1929 to 1932. • The unemployment rate soared in the U.S. and Germany to a peak above 33%. • World trade collapsed by two-thirds, not least because of retaliation to the SmootHawley tariff. Depression and War The Unemployed are Mobilized Germany’s debt exceeded its national income in 1923 and could not pay its international debts. The government printed money which led to hyperinflation Germany invades Poland Causes? Solutions? Leadership • a central source of the Great Depression in the 1930s was a lack of British leadership and the unwillingness of the U.S. to provide leadership in the world economy. • Leadership is needed to stabilize the world economy • leadership means three things: 1. providing a market for distress goods 2. providing long-term lending 3. discounting in crisis Leadership for Stability: Post-war Global Financial Institutions • Market Anarchy caused the Depression • Market can be tamed by government intervention • Global Markets need global governance and intervention IMF World Bank Paul Wolfowitz he head of World Bank (2005-07), visited a mosque during an official visit to Turkey. Obeying local customs, he removed his shoes and revealed two large holes in his socks! WTO American Leadership • the United States assumed primary responsibility for the management of the world monetary system, beginning with the Marshall Plan and partially under the disguise of the IMF. • The dollar became the basis of the international monetary system. • The US took in the world’s distressed goods and began to build a trade deficit Multilateralism, American style Marshall Plan Marshall plan in action The U.S.: market for world’s distressed goods, source of credit, lender of last resort • US becomes market for world’s distressed goods • Source of credit • Lender of last resort • How? European Cooperation The US Trade deficit: 1950-1973 Too many dollars Vietnam war: more inflation War on Poverty Value drops Value drops inflation Free Trade Casino Economy The more free trade, the higher the income Decline in real wages Rise of Temporary workers Growth of a low wage work force • Between 1975 and 1990, the percentage of low wage employees in the total work force grew by 142 per cent, from 17 per cent to 40 per cent Rise in unemployment But No Capital shortages • . Capital markets are grew more quickly than demand for capital, and new calculations show that Asia could very well finance much of its growth through savings. Deregulation and corruption 1945-73 U.S. Leadership International Financial Institutions International Trade Organizations 1920s Globalization Absence of Leadership and Regulation…. Govt = “private good, public bad” 1980’s 1990’s 1970’s Recession 1930s Depression Follow the crisis…. • • • • • 1. Housing values remain stable for 100 years to 1995 1995-2005 Housing prices double + 2. Wage stagnation and income inequality + 3. Deregulation of financial markets 4. Easy money easy mortgages as bets on in housing prices + Run of CDOs and derivatives + borrowing to buy them (betting on in value) + rating fraud + easy insurance (AIG) highly leveraged banks Housing supply overwhelms demand housing prices fall + mortgage defaults CDOs lose value + Bank stock prices fall credit drys up Begin the bailout (hopefully) more credit (hopefully) save businesses and jobs (hopefully) economic growth Fannie Mae Freddy Mac • • • • • pened The Floodgates MISDIAGNOSING THE CAUSES OF THE CRISIS COULD LEAD BOTH TO REGULATORY OVERKILL AND TO MORE RECKLESS RISK TAKING. by Stuart Taylor Saturday, Oct. 18, 2008 • President Bush, his Securities and Exchange Commission appointees, other free-enterprise dogmatists who have stood in the way of regulating risky and opaque financial manipulations, and greedy Wall Streeters deserve the blame heaped on them for the financial meltdown that has so severely shaken America. But the pretense of many Democrats that this crisis is altogether a Republican creation is simplistic and dangerous. It is simplistic because Democrats have been a big part of the problem, in part by supporting governmental distortions of the marketplace through mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose reckless lending practices necessitated a $200 billion government rescue last month. It is dangerous because misdiagnosing the causes of the crisis could lead both to regulatory overkill and to more reckless risk taking by Fannie, Freddie, or newly created government-sponsored enterprises. Fannie and Freddie aside, it's worth pointing out that many, if not most, of those greedy Wall Street barons are Democrats. And that the securities and investment industry has given more money to Democrats than to Republicans in this election cycle. And that opposing regulation of risky new financial practices by private investment banks and others has been a bipartisan enterprise, engaged in by the Clinton and Bush administrations alike. But the roles of Fannie and Freddie are my focus here. Powerful Democratic (and some Republican) advocates of affordable housing, including Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., have been the GSEs' most potent and ardent champions in recent years. Meanwhile, the agencies and their employees have orchestrated a gigantic lobbying effort (costing more than $174 million between 1998 and 2008). They have also made campaign contributions of more than $14.6 million between the 2000 and 2008 election cycles, with some of the largest going to Dodd and Barack Obama. A leading illustration of this Democrat-GSE symbiosis came in summer 2005. The Senate Banking Committee adopted a bill to impose tighter regulation on Fannie and Freddie, with all Republicans voting for it. But the Democrats voted against it in committee and killed it on the floor. Also in 2005, Fannie and Freddie began buying vast amounts of subprime and "alt-A" mortgages with, in many cases, virtually no down payments, that had been taken out by people with low credit scores and low incomes relative to their monthly payments. To finance more and more affordable housing, as leading Democrats, and some Republicans, had urged, the GSEs dramatically lowered their traditional underwriting standards. Between 2005 and 2007, Fannie and Freddie "sold out the taxpayers" by financing almost $1 trillion in such highly risky mortgages, according to "The Last Trillion Dollar Commitment: The Destruction of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," a carefully researched essay posted on the conservative American Enterprise Institute's website by Peter Wallison of AEI and Charles Calomiris of Columbia Business School. They base their trillion-dollar figure, which is much higher than most published estimates, on detailed analysis of what they call "accounting practices that made it difficult to detect the size of those exposures." Fannie and Freddie appear to have played a major role in causing the current crisis, in part because their quasi-governmental status violated basic principles of a healthy free enterprise system by allowing them to privatize profit while socializing risk. That is, their special privileges as GSEs -- created decades ago to promote homeownership by buying mortgages from banks, which could then use the cash to make more loans -- enabled them to lend at high rates to reap enormous profits for their private stockholders and executives and to borrow at low rates based on the government's implicit promise to rescue them from any failure, as it has now done. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Unbeknownst to the investment banks, the experts at Fannie and Freddie knew very well that their bosses were taking reckless risks. Many conservatives have gone so far as to blame Fannie, Freddie, and their Democratic sponsors for the entire meltdown. Some (not including Wallison and Calomiris) also blame the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which forced banks to lend and invest more in minority and low-income areas. This accusation has spurred furious rebuttals by Democrats and their media friends. Some have been well reasoned. Some -- especially a July 14 column by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics this week -- have been flat-out incorrect. As Wallison and Calomiris demonstrate, Krugman was egregiously wrong in writing that "Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending." He was wrong again in stating that "they didn't do any subprime lending, because they can't ... by law." He was further wrong in writing that the GSEs were "tightly regulated with regard to the risks they can take." Others in the don't-blame-Fannie-and-Freddie camp reasonably point out that private Wall Street investment banks and others financed even more of the $3 trillion in substandard mortgages than Fannie and Freddie did, and that these investment banks and many of the mortgage lenders who made (and then sold) the loans were not covered by the Community Reinvestment Act. Wallison agrees that the 31-year-old law does not appear to have been a major cause of the current crisis. He also notes that although the Clinton administration pushed British Leadership (again?) • At a special European summit meeting on Sunday, the major economies of continental Europe in effect declared themselves ready to follow Britain’s lead, injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into banks while guaranteeing their debts. And whaddya know, Mr. Paulson — after arguably wasting several precious weeks — has also reversed course, and now plans to buy equity stakes rather than bad mortgage securities (although he still seems to be moving with painful slowness). Global Leadership? Britain? G8? International 1990’s Globalization Organizations? No Leader!!!! No regulation!!!! “Private Good, Public Bad” Wage stagnation Housing Bubble Easy Money 2008 Future? McCain solutions • • • • • • • • Sen. John McCain is proposing a new set of tax cuts aimed at helping investors weather the financial crisis. It includes temporary reductions on capital gains tax, on taxes paid by senior citizens when they withdraw money from retirement accounts, and on taxes paid on unemployment benefits. The total package would cost $52.8 billion, according to senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. All of the proposals would apply for 2009 and 2010. The McCain campaign has struggled to figure out the best response to the economic crisis, suggesting a number of proposals over the last few weeks. None of them appears to have caught fire with the public, though, as polls show voters trust rival Sen. Barack Obama more on the economy. The Democratic nominee has been gaining in national and battleground state polls with Election Day just three weeks away. The Obama campaign called the McCain initiative “a day late and 101 families short,” saying it will not spur job growth for the middle class. “His trickle-down, ideological recipes won’t strengthen our economy and grow our middle-class, but Barack Obama’s pro-jobs, pro-family economic policies will,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. He added that a capital gain tax cut won’t be very helpful in a year when people don’t have many capital gains. The McCain plan would reduce the tax on long-term capital gains to 7.5% from 15% for 2009 and 2010. The campaign said this would “strengthen incentives to save, invest and restore the liquidity of the markets.” That would cost $10 billion. He also wants to increase the amount of capital losses that can be used to offset ordinary income from $3,000 to $15,000. The most expensive part of the plan would lower the tax rate on money seniors withdraw from IRAs and 401(k) retirement plans to the lowest rate — 10%. This would apply to the first $50,000 withdrawn from these accounts each year. The campaign estimated it would help nearly 9 million Americans over age 60 and would cost $36 billion. Obama solutions • Obama proposed tax breaks for businesses that create new jobs, a freeze on foreclosures by banks that participate in the government's rescue program and a public-works fund to rebuild the nation's infrastructure while keeping people employed. He embraced McCain's proposal to suspend the rule that would require retirees to start liquidating their 401(k) holdings at the bottom of the stock-market crash. And he went a step further, proposing that Americans should be able to withdraw some of those retirement savings without penalty during the economic crisis. Back in the USA: Keynes Triumphs? Times Square News Ticker