The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
We must curb international flows of capital First large downhill flows of capital - from rich countries to poor countries - led to the Latin American debt crisis of the early 1980s. In the 1990s similar flows begat the Asian financial crisis. Since 2002 the flows have been uphill, from emerging markets and oil-exporting countries to the developed world, especially the US. But the outcome has not been very different. So, it does not seem to matter how capital flows. That it flows in sufficiently large quantities across borders - the celebrated phenomenon of financial globalisation - seems to spell trouble. (...) Some would claim that the problem in all these instances was not liquidity but lax regulation, which turned what should have been prudent borrowing into a destructive binge. But this argument is too optimistic about the potential of prudential regulation to stem excessive risk-taking. In the US the entire policy apparatus avoided any regulatory action against lax lending. Even when the will is there, prudential regulation is bound to remain one step behind financial innovation. If the risk-taking behaviour of financial intermediaries cannot be regulated perfectly, we need to find ways of reducing the volume of transactions. Otherwise we commit the same fallacy as gun control opponents who argue that "guns do not kill people, people do". As we are unable to regulate fully the behaviour of gun owners, we have no choice but to restrict the circulation of guns more directly. What this means is that financial capital should be flowing across borders in smaller quantities, so that finance is "primarily national", as John Maynard Keynes advised. If downhill and uphill flows are both problematic, capital flows should be more level. (...) Financial globalisation has not generated increased investment or higher growth in emerging markets. Countries that have grown most rapidly have been those that rely least on capital inflows. Nor has financial globalisation led to better smoothing of consumption or reduced volatility. If you want to make an evidence-based case for financial globalisation today, you are forced to resort to indirect and speculative arguments.
First large downhill flows of capital - from rich countries to poor countries - led to the Latin American debt crisis of the early 1980s. In the 1990s similar flows begat the Asian financial crisis.
Since 2002 the flows have been uphill, from emerging markets and oil-exporting countries to the developed world, especially the US. But the outcome has not been very different. So, it does not seem to matter how capital flows. That it flows in sufficiently large quantities across borders - the celebrated phenomenon of financial globalisation - seems to spell trouble.
(...)
Some would claim that the problem in all these instances was not liquidity but lax regulation, which turned what should have been prudent borrowing into a destructive binge. But this argument is too optimistic about the potential of prudential regulation to stem excessive risk-taking. In the US the entire policy apparatus avoided any regulatory action against lax lending. Even when the will is there, prudential regulation is bound to remain one step behind financial innovation.
If the risk-taking behaviour of financial intermediaries cannot be regulated perfectly, we need to find ways of reducing the volume of transactions. Otherwise we commit the same fallacy as gun control opponents who argue that "guns do not kill people, people do". As we are unable to regulate fully the behaviour of gun owners, we have no choice but to restrict the circulation of guns more directly.
What this means is that financial capital should be flowing across borders in smaller quantities, so that finance is "primarily national", as John Maynard Keynes advised. If downhill and uphill flows are both problematic, capital flows should be more level.
Financial globalisation has not generated increased investment or higher growth in emerging markets. Countries that have grown most rapidly have been those that rely least on capital inflows. Nor has financial globalisation led to better smoothing of consumption or reduced volatility. If you want to make an evidence-based case for financial globalisation today, you are forced to resort to indirect and speculative arguments.
They call for taxes on oil, an appreciation of Asian currencies, and stricted capital controls. And this is Dani Rodrik and Arvind Subramanian, is senior names in the economics field...
We no longer need ATTAC - se have the FT! In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Not directly related, but here is another "Wow!" - one of the stupidest pronouncements yet from the Bushits: "Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn, in a speech Tuesday, said the Fed remained concerned about the weak economy, signaling the possibility of further rate cuts. While noting recent "disappointing" news on inflation, he said, "I do not expect the recent elevated inflation rates to persist," in part because the slowing economy should ease pressure on wages." paul spencer
These two do not deal with ´reality´, they just make it up as they go along and then they confuse their sick-value system with topography, while catching a glimpse of the gun problem somewhere, to come to an unsupported conclusion. Truly seni..le minds.
Give ´em more rope.
P.S. Maybe you should be charging the fool times for translating into real life. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
by IdiotSavant - Jun 24 11 comments
by Oui - Jun 25 42 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 16 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 15 12 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 10 15 comments
by Bernard - Jun 6 23 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 6 4 comments
by Oui - Jun 8 104 comments
by Oui - Jun 2719 comments
by Oui - Jun 2542 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 2411 comments
by Oui - Jun 2310 comments
by Oui - Jun 23
by gmoke - Jun 22
by Oui - Jun 20
by Oui - Jun 1916 comments
by asdf - Jun 184 comments
by Oui - Jun 184 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 1614 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1512 comments
by Oui - Jun 1310 comments
by Oui - Jun 1240 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1015 comments
by Oui - Jun 95 comments
by Oui - Jun 8104 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 64 comments
by Bernard - Jun 623 comments
by Oui - Jun 6