The U.S. as an Emerging Market?
Simon Johnson, a prolific academic writer and former Chief Economist of the IMF, has come out with a relatively negative view on the U.S. financial system, both current and past. According to Simon, the personal interlinkages between the political and financial systems in the U.S. are very similar to those in many, if not most, emerging markets. And the policy approach towards solving the financial crisis has been dominated by attempts to minimize the pain for bankers, rather than for the overall economy. The bank-by-bank approach with generous bail-outs, while avoiding more drastic actions that might risk shareholders’ equity stakes and senior manager bonuses, has not really helped so far. In order to really get out of the slump, Simon recommends more decisive action in the banking sector, including temporary nationalization and clean up of banks, but also the breaking-up of the financial oligarchy with its links to the political system.
But here is the difference between the U.S. and emerging markets: while in the latter, international markets and the IMF can help in the reform of both the financial and political systems, the U.S. is too strong and has the luxury of paying its foreign debt in its own currency. So, a rather bleak outlook for the U.S. (Simon sees a Japanese decade ahead for the U.S. ), paradoxically because of and not in spite of having the most powerful economy and government in the world. However, I still have to see a country where the IMF has really recommended (or even managed) to break the political oligarchy.
Comments (2)
E-mail
Digg
Bookmark
Facebook



Oligarchy means… the rule of the few.
Of course there are a couple of huge financial institutions that can or could be classified as oligarchs, and no one would really doubt that some of them exercise undue influence, as do many or even most other organized economic interests, whether through lobbying or other means. That said, to talk about “the breaking-up of the financial oligarchy with its links to the political system” in the midst of a crisis when we are seeing so many of the supposedly oligarchic institutions losing their shirts and fighting for their life, and in a country with such a large and diversified financial sector, seems to me slightly out of sync. By the way if Simon Johnson is so sure this is the war we need to fight, then why did he not speak out before?
If these supposed oligarchs now team up with some politicians to do some hanky-panky against the taxpayers, this will most probably be discovered, sooner or later, and all hell will and should break lose, for the guilty ones… and that’s all there is to it. Frankly, I do not see the need for having a former Chief Economist of the IMF feeding the possibility of some bad populist hatemongering that could really worsen the crisis for all… though foremost, as always, for the weak and poor.
Does this mean I do not think that some private banks have to be temporarily placed in the public domain (nationalized seems the wrong term) and cleaned up? Of course not!
Now if we really want to talk about oligarchy… why do we not talk instead about the Basel Committee and its credit rating agencies? Have you ever seen so few ruling so much in the financial world?
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Apr 18, 2009 7:24:23 PM
See:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
Posted by: Aart van der Wal | Apr 19, 2009 11:31:43 AM