Talking-shop-on-Thames

BIG ECONOMIC POWERS DECIDE THE FATE OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY “LIKE King Charles II, the Economic Conference is taking an unconscionable time to die,” lamented The Economist in 1933, halfway through an epic—and ultimately fruitless—gathering of world powers in London to prevent the spread of protectionism in the depths of the Depression. That conference lasted more than a month, with the dollar sinking and tempers rising the longer it dragged on. At least there is no danger of interminable drift when leaders of the Group of 20 gather in London next month to address the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. They have set themselves just one day, April 2nd, to do what their predecessors failed to accomplish in weeks: tackle the crisis and consider ways to remake the rules of finance. This weekend G20 finance ministers and central bank governors attending a preparatory meeting in London may well attempt to limit expectations. More pressingly, they will have to heal an awkward sense of transatlantic disunity that has emerged in the run-up to the meeting. The tensions were exposed at an assembly of European finance ministers on March 9th and 10th. The ministers responded sharply to a call by Lawrence Summers, the White House economic adviser, for everyone in the G20 to focus on boosting global demand. Such calls were “not to our liking,” sniped Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg’s prime minister and the chairman of the meeting. The cause of harmony may not have been helped when Britain’s most senior civil servant was quoted as saying the shortage of staff in Barack Obama’s two-month-old Treasury was making preparations for the summit “unbelievably difficult”. (Tim Geithner, the treasury secretary, disputes that.) In reality, the tensions appeared more symptomatic of the opening of bargaining than of a disastrous rift. The G20’s agenda focuses on three broad areas: sorting out the crisis through fiscal and monetary means and by encouraging banks to lend; medium-term regulatory reforms; and strengthening multilateral bodies such as the IMF so that they can give more help to crisis-hit developing countries. Everyone has different priorities. America feels its counterparts are not doing enough to boost demand. It would like them to pledge a fiscal stimulus equal to 2% of global GDP this year and next, and for the IMF to monitor compliance. Some countries would also like the European Central Bank to make better use of its monetary arsenal, as the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England have. America has indeed done a lot to stimulate growth (see table). The IMF, however, notes that taking into account automatic stabilisers, such as welfare payments to the unemployed, Germany’s fiscal response is not as far behind America’s as it appears. Not only does Germany feel its spending package is big enough, it is pressing for a quick return to balanced budgets when the crisis is over. Although transatlantic differences have emerged over fiscal policy, they are narrowing over regulation. Germany and France have long battled to persuade America and Britain to regulate hedge funds, which are clustered in the financial centres of New York and London. America is now prepared to countenance regulation of systemically important ones. Since the G20 leaders first met in November, their deputies have laboured on reforms to the stricken global financial system, in particular through the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), a Basel-based group that met in London this week. These include reforms that would affect bank regulators, supervisors and accounting standard-setters, and cover bankers’ pay, derivatives trading and rating agencies. America, chastened by its own regulatory failures, is now more supportive of tougher, co-ordinated global regulatory standards but only to a degree: it is unenthusiastic about uniform standards for executive pay pushed by Britain. In addition, the FSF is expected to propose to the G20 ways to make bank regulation less pro-cyclical, by making forward-looking provisions against bad loans rather than the “incurred-loss” method now in use—though not so that banks can use the provisions to massage earnings (see article). It will suggest incorporating a leverage ratio into bank-capital requirements, to supplement the existing risk-weighting of assets. It is also helping set up cross-border supervisory colleges to share information about 30 global banks. Illustration by S. Kambayashi There is general support for doubling the IMF’s resources to $500 billion, but America would like it to have even more. It is not clear how the increase would be funded. Reserve-rich countries like China could contribute more, as Japan did with a $100 billion pledge in February. But some fear that strings might be attached to such money, such as less criticism of China’s exchange-rate policy. Mr Geithner has proposed the IMF’s credit line with 26 rich member countries be dramatically raised to $500 billion from $50 billion. Some of the trade-offs will be driven by political considerations. French and German voters, for example, lay part of the blame for the crisis on hedge funds and tax havens, even though both played minor roles compared with the highly regulated banking system. Likewise, Mr Geithner is pressing for higher global capital standards for non-bank financial firms (such as American International Group, a big insurer), in part to reassure taxpayers that this sort of crisis and the accompanying bail-outs will not be repeated. Given the importance of the summit to the reputations of Gordon Brown, its British host, and Mr Obama, on his first overseas trip since taking office, every effort will be made to trumpet such progress. Few expect a 1933-style fiasco, though participants believe that given the tensions exhibited this week, a narrowing of differences is more likely than any “grand bargain” to put the world to rights. The best that might emerge from the summit is proof that leaders of the world’s biggest economies continue to talk to each other. Given the urgency of the situation, and the immense capital that Mr Obama still holds abroad, the world might have hoped for more. Talk, like so much else in this financial crisis, is cheap.

GENEROUS SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH

While the Poor are told to play the Free Market Game Those of us further to the left always had some difficulties with the notion, but George W. Bush's administration (and perhaps some of his acolytes nearer home) appear to have found a new approach: socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. In building a left polity without a basis in common ownership, a generation of Fabians and social democratic thinkers constructed a polity where the less well-off in society would be provided with a safety net - and indeed equality would be promoted, particularly through comprehensive education - while the richest could enjoy relatively laissez-faire pro-capitalist politics, their only cost being progressive taxation to fund the 'socialism' of the poor. Compared with much of the philosophy of the New Labour era, it was quite progressive, and it certainly isn't the purpose of the current article to criticise it. I was always sceptical that a single polity - the sum of the policies for rich, middling and poor - could really serve the interests of all three. At best it could serve the interests of two out of the three, and two contiguous groups. As such, I've always seen it as my business to try and design policies that serve the interests of those on moderate and low incomes, even if those policies run contrary to the interests (the immediate, material interests, at any rate) of the rich. But of course, all manner of states have intervened in all manner of economies, and just because we are used to the notion of state intervention as being part of the politics of the left, we must not ignore the potential of the state to intervene in the interests of the wealthy, even where the intervention may run contrary to the interests of those on moderate and low incomes. Of course, it may be the case that - in the interests of people of all manner of incomes, and across the world not just in the US - $700 billion (or more) will have to go to bail-out the gambling debts of the super-wealthy. It may be that that's what we have to do, because actually capitalism - even if you try and just reserve it for the rich - is inherently flawed, and is all-consuming. Our interests have - like it or not - become bound up with those of Wall Street and the City of London; and because governments in many countries have allowed the gamblers to have their fun (never bailing out those who truly lost when the losses consisted of the savings or pensions of people on moderate or low incomes) we have arrived at moment of emergency intervention. But this is also the moment of the test. Do we throw billions of dollars and pounds and euros at this tainted industry just to allow it to start again? For pinstriped gamblers to pocket billions in future boom years, and the rest of us to bail them out again when the next bust comes along? Can we afford that little bit of 'socialism' to keep the rich in business; the super-wealthy winning in boom and bust, while those on moderate and low incomes take the hit in both conditions too? After all, $700 billion dollars is an extraordinary amount of money; earlier debates about money in Congress this year have been about just how big the cuts in Medicare provision should be. John McCain - proud to have played his part in securing $700 billion dollars for bankers - has a set of policies that involve cutting Medicare further, getting rid of tax incentives for employer-paid health insurance... After all - ordinary people should be subject to the whims of the market. In the UK, we have closed down Remploy factories, while reducing the number of people eligible to claim a decent Disability Living Allowance amongst other 'welfare reforms' where we look after the pennies, while the pounds pour into the wealthiest people's back pockets and keep funding city bonuses. If it wasn't for the human cost of the nascent crisis, one could almost laugh that George W. Bush - that great ideologue of capitalism - should be presiding over such a great crisis of capital that he has had to occasionally take up the old cry of 'nationalise the banks!' But the important thing for us is to ensure - in the UK at least, where we have potential power over such decisions - that the interests of those on moderate and low incomes are kept at the forefront of all our decision-making, regulation and intervention. Underwriting the poison with tax money and public debt, while selling off the gold to another set of gamblers does not come under that heading. We also need to ensure that we rethink the stuctures of high finance - fundamentally and entirely - in the interests of those same members of society - even if that should run counter to the interests of the wealthiest. That is the lesson of the crisis, and it's a lesson we need to learn quickly and well.

SIGN OF THE TIMES

>>>> NIGERIA IMPOSES FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROLS The global financial crisis we are told is far removed from the realities of daily tarry in the developing world ,especially Africa but the decision of the the Nigerian Central bank to impose foreign exchange restriction shows that the threat ids much nearer than we have assumed up till now. Nigeria is the indispensable big brother we in Ghana cannot do without and when it sneezes we might want to take precaution.

End of the Greenspan error

HOW THE MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE STRIPPED HIMSELF At least he was sincere about it and that is the only In saying he was "absolutely" wrong about how markets behave, Alan Greenspan has admitted his own ignorance There was a time when investors and members of Congress hung on Alan Greenspan's every nuanced word. Now and then some may have politely suggested that perhaps he should ease up on interest rates, but they would never have dared to think that his encyclopedic view of the economy was in any way flawed or mistaken. Yesterday Greenspan broke that bubble by admitting that he may have been wrong in an appearance before the House oversight and government reform committee: I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," Mr. Greenspan said. The mistake was fundamental. "You found that your view of the world, your ideology was not right, it was not working?" said California congressman Henry A Waxman, the committee chairman. "Absolutely, precisely," Greenspan said. "You know, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well." To hear Alan Greenspan admit that his way of seeing the world was "absolutely, precisely" wrong is to mark the end of an era. There was a time when Greenspan conferred his blessing on the proliferation of derivatives. He opposed regulating derivatives because they spread the risk and made cheap credit more widely available. The trouble is that the prices of this cheap credit began to lose any connection to reality as derivatives proliferated. As mortgages - which themselves were based on a real estate bubble - were dismembered and repackaged, the resulting derivatives became detached from the value of the underlying assets. Collateralised Debt Obligations, or CDOs, were given triple-A credit ratings and traded by bankers who never saw the properties or looked at the credit profiles of the borrowers. The risk may have been spread, but the price of the risk was badly underestimated. Two weeks ago, Nell Minow of the Corporate Library proposed the Paul Volcker rule (named after the former Federal Reserve chairman) in an appearance before the same House committee: "If Paul Volcker can't understand it, it shouldn't be on the market." Greenspan admitted that he and some other really smart folks didn't understand the derivatives market they had allowed to flourish, despite the "best insights of mathematicians and finance experts," sophisticated computer modeling and at least one Nobel prize in economics: The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year because the data inputted into the risk management models generally covered only the past two decades, a period of euphoria. We have seen it over and over again in the Age of Greenspan: hedge funds got their name by hedging risks, but derivatives can be used to double down on risk just as easily. New financial instruments were declared to be so diabolically clever that they couldn't possibly fail. Sophisticated equations allowed bankers and hedge fund managers to price risk to within an inch of their lives, or so they thought; they were actually living far beyond any rational capital requirements. When Long-Term Capital Management, which hired some of those Nobel laureates, failed 10 years ago, Greenspan had to orchestrate a rescue using investment bank funds. LTCM was wound up, but its techniques spread quickly through Wall Street. Investment banks, which before the Age of Greenspan made money by managing money for clients, began trading for their own account. Managers were rewarded for taking on ever larger and more exotic risks that bore little resemblance to the underlying economic reality. One doesn't need a Nobel prize to know what brought about the collapse of this intellectual edifice. Humorist Roy Blount summed it up in a talk before an audience in Philadelphia earlier this week: "Money got too abstract, and that's why it went away"

Bush cheers “free enterprise” as US capitalism goes bust

US President George W. Bush came to Wall Street Thursday to deliver a speech extolling the virtues of the "free enterprise" system even as multiple economic indicators made it clear that the so-called "magic of the market" is spelling misery for millions more working people in the US and around the globe. Bush delivered his paean to American capitalism at Federal Hall, just a stone's throw from the New York Stock Exchange. The historic building was the site of the inauguration of George Washington and the first sessions of the US Congress. The august setting stood in stark contrast to the character of the select audience, which, in the gap between its ideological proclivities and socioeconomic reality, resembled a meeting of the flat earth society. A total of 175 people turned out for the session, organized by the Manhattan Institute, a right-wing think tank that specializes in demonizing the poor while promoting tax cuts, financial deregulation, the dismantling of social programs and the decimation of public education. The lame-duck president timed his speech for the eve of this weekend's G20 summit in Washington, which will bring together heads of state from the world's major economies for the ostensible purpose of working out a common agenda for confronting the global financial meltdown. Behind the banalities and boosterism, Bush's message to those assembling in Washington was clear: Nothing will be accepted that interferes with the unfettered accumulation of wealth by America's financial elite and the defense of their interests, regardless the cost to the world's population. Bush effectively acknowledged at the outset that the gathering of presidents and prime ministers this weekend will accomplish nothing—and that his administration will block any attempt to reach binding agreements. "The undertaking is too large to be accomplished in a single session," he said. "The issues are too complex, the problem is too significant to try to solve, or to come up with reasonable recommendations in just one meeting." Rather, he insisted, the summit should be dedicated to "developing principles," above all, the reaffirmation that "free market principles offer the surest path to lasting prosperity." Given the state of the economy, confronting its most profound crisis since the 1930s, Bush's remarks appeared delusional. He spoke in the wake of official figures showing that more than half a million American workers filed for unemployment benefits the week before, and over 85,000 homes had been foreclosed in October. The Treasury Department announced a record budget deficit of $237.2 billion for the month of October, and just a day before, its secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson, was forced to make an emergency announcement that the $700 billion approved by Congress to buy up "toxic" mortgage-backed assets must now be redirected to prop up not only the major banks, but also the failing consumer credit industry. Bush felt compelled to acknowledge that "in the wake of the financial crisis, voices from the left and the right are equating the free enterprise system with greed and exploitation and failure." While admitting some isolated failings, Bush rejected any indictment of the capitalist system. "The crisis was not a failure of the free market system," he proclaimed. "And the answer is not to try to reinvent that system. It is to fix the problems we face, make the reforms we need, and move forward with the free-market principles that have delivered prosperity and hope to people all across the globe." The "fixes" that Bush proposed were so vague as to be meaningless: "improving accounting rules," ensuring that "financial products are properly regulated" and taking a "fresh look at the rules governing market manipulation and fraud." His faith in the "free market," however, remained rock solid: "Like any other system designed by man, capitalism is not perfect [presumably, only the eternal free market created by God in the hereafter can attain such a state]. It can be subject to excesses and abuse. But it is by far the most efficient and just way of structuring an economy. At its most basic level, it offers people the freedom to choose where they work and what they do." He continued: "Free market capitalism is more than an economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility—the highway to the American Dream." "Freedom to choose where they work?" Whom does he think he's kidding? According to official figures, 10 million American workers are now out of work and cannot find jobs. Their ranks have been swollen by 1 million in the last year alone. If one counts those who are underemployed—involuntarily relegated to part-time jobs—and so-called "discouraged" workers, who have been dropped from the jobless rolls, fully one of eight not only can't choose where he or she works, but cannot get full-time work at all. And this is only the beginning, with mass layoffs being announced daily, threatening to create an army of unemployed larger than any seen since the Great Depression. As for free-market capitalism serving as an "engine of social mobility," this movement has increasingly been in opposite directions, with those at the top of the social ladder increasing their share of total wealth to unprecedented levels, while the vast majority, the working people, have seen their incomes stagnate and decline. The gap between wealth and poverty in the US is now greater than at any time since the 1920s. It is this amassing of wealth by those at the top that Bush is determined to defend. As the Washington Post pointed out Friday, among the proposals being put forward by other heads of state attending the Washington summit that "Bush and his aides do not favor" is the call for "restrictions on executive pay." Bush was forced to admit that even his commitment to the free market has limits. "We are faced with the prospect of a global meltdown," he said. "And so we've responded with bold measures. I'm a market-oriented guy, but not when I'm faced with the prospect of a global meltdown." These "bold measures"—backed not only by Bush but also by President-elect Barack Obama—have amounted to the looting of trillions of dollars in social wealth in order to bail out the country's biggest banks and Wall Street finance houses. Hundreds of billions of dollars of this money is flowing directly into bonuses for financial executives and dividends for wealthy shareholders, while facilitating the consolidation of banks and the further concentration of wealth. "Free-market principles" continue to apply in full force, however, to workers who have lost their jobs and to families facing foreclosure on their homes. For them there is no bailout, only the prospect of being forced to pay for the trillions lavished on Wall Street through further attacks on living standards, jobs and social programs. Earlier in his presidency, Bush restricted his public appearances largely to military audiences, bound by command discipline to treat him with respect. Now, in the waning days of his presidency, he apparently feels comfortable only in addressing small groups of right-wing ideologues like those assembled by the Manhattan Institute. For good reason. Outside of this rarified atmosphere, the popularity of capitalism and the "free market" is sinking to that of the outgoing president himself, whose poll numbers have plumbed depths never reached by any previous occupant of the White House. Millions are indeed beginning to identify the "free enterprise system" with "greed and corruption and failure." As the Obama administration takes office and seeks to defend this same system, popular anger over the social conditions created by capitalism must inevitably take the form of mass struggles against his government.

WHAT GHANA MUST LEARN FROM AMERICA ON CAPITALISM

... UNFETTERED FREE MARKET IS SUICIDAL Within a matter of i week the Republican(they are puritan capitalists) Governed US has dramatically moved against the tenets of their ideology and saved the American financial system by acquiring majority shares in Major banks that were in danger of failing. But here in Ghana the government does not protect business in trouble nor does it protect the economic interest of Ghanaian s o the pretext of " business is not the business of government" They even go further to divest well performing national assets to foreigners.