In defence of bailouts
At the height of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008, the world was on the edge of an economic precipice. Financial markets were in meltdown, global banks were on the cusp of failing and powerful shockwaves were being felt around the world.
Faced with financial Armageddon, governments moved to rescue the troubled banking system. Household names like Citigroup and Bank of America were in a state of peril. Lesser known institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also in distress.
Governments, quite rightly, could not sit idly by and watch their banking systems crash. If banks were allowed to go under, the damage to national economies would have been incalculable. Bailouts were, therefore, used as a circuit breaker to mitigate contagion risk.
The risk of contagion in banking, also called systemic risk, is akin to a chain reaction. Bank failures create a domino effect. Financial difficulties at one bank can quickly spill over to other banks or the financial system as a whole, resulting in a wave of distressed institutions.
The GFC starkly revealed how interconnected the financial world has become. Problems in the US subprime mortgage market spread rapidly to other parts of the market and impacted the stability of institutions everywhere. This ripple effect had the potential to fell both solvent and insolvent banks.
Contagion arises because banks are financially exposed to one another, both through the payments system and through other types of activities such as loans and derivatives. These balance sheet linkages (or interbank liabilities) between financial institutions mean that they are too interconnected to fail.
Banks and other financial institutions play a critical intermediation role in the economy. They act as an intermediary (go between) in moving money between investors and borrowers. Put another way, banks act as a middleman between suppliers of funds and users of funds.
Moreover, banks clear cheques, settle ATM transactions and effect electronic transfers and other payments. No banking activity is as fundamental to society as payments. The list of payment instruments includes debit cards, credit cards, direct debits, direct credits and Internet banking.
Not to be forgotten is the role of banks in credit creation. Banks create money through their lending activities. When a bank makes a loan to a customer and deposits the proceeds into a bank account, new credit money is created.
Money borrowed from a financial institution increases the money supply. A distressed banking system provides reduced credit which results in a lack of money (credit squeeze) for the rest of the economy. Without access to capital, businesses contract and unemployment rises.
Virtually every business and individual in the world has a bank (or credit union!) account. Modern trade and commerce would be almost impossible without the availability of banking services. This is why governments acted in unison to bring stability to the global banking system.
Not every distressed institution received a bailout. Both in Australia and abroad, authorities arranged “shotgun marriages” with stronger institutions taking over ailing competitors at knockdown prices. Examples include JP Morgan’s buyout of Bear Stearns and the acquisition of BankWest by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
Many people remain angry that taxpayer funds were used to prop-up the banking sector. Citizens around the world are unhappy that they had to pay for the mistakes and oversights made by banks. However, as I outlined above, rescuing troubled institutions was the lesser of two evils.
The public backlash to what many saw as rewarding bad behaviour is understandable. I too feel annoyed. Smaller financial institutions, like credit unions, did nothing to bring about the financial crisis. Yet we now face increased regulation because of the cavalier behaviour of others.
Posting Date: 4 February 2013
In defence of globalisation
The car that I drive was made in Japan. The watch that I wear was made in Switzerland. The suit that I don was made in Malaysia. The iPhone that I use was made in China. Like all Australians, I have access to a wide range of affordable yet quality products. I benefit from the lower price of these items since they are made more cost-effectively overseas.
But what if the government told Australians that they could no longer buy imported goods. I suspect there would be riots in the streets as globalisation impacts our everyday lives. Australians would no longer be able to spray French perfumes, drive German cars, self-assemble Swedish furniture or watch flat-screen televisions from Korea.
The strongest argument for globalisation is that it enables you to profit from specialisation. For example, the Chinese are very good at producing low-cost goods. Economists refer to this as a comparative advantage. China’s comparative advantage is due to its cheap labour and low production costs.
As a result, China has an edge in making clothes and, Ralph Lauren, the designer of the uniforms for the 2012 US Olympic team, arranged for the uniforms to be manufactured in China. Predictably, some US senators engaged in populist politics and were up in arms that American athletes had to don “Made in China” uniforms.
There was outrage on Capitol Hill with calls to “burn the uniforms” and that it was “embarrassing” for the athletes to wear them. For my money, these comments reflect a lack of understanding of comparative advantage and how trade works. A Forbes Magazine contributor put it well in saying that “someone should tell these folks that if you want to have exports, you also have to have imports”!
The reality is that the Made in China uniforms were good for the US economy and for US jobs. In the lead up to the London Olympics, a blogger for Bloomberg Business explained it this way:
Garment manufacturing is a low-cost commodity business. Most of the value in the apparel industry comes from design, technology, sales, marketing and distribution – not manufacturing. The successful players in apparel, such as Ralph Lauren and Nike, figured this out long ago. ... But just because America doesn’t manufacture apparel anymore doesn’t mean we can’t lead the industry.
In fact, the world’s largest apparel companies are almost all US-based, including Nike, (and) ... Ralph Lauren, to name a few. ... Nike has created more than 15,000 new jobs in the US (during the past decade), and Ralph Lauren almost 10,000. And unlike the low-paying production jobs next to sewing machines, these are well-paying jobs in marketing, accounting, design, and management.
These companies are winning globally by out-designing, out-innovating, and out-marketing the competition. Nike, for example, is unveiling a new TurboSpeed running suit at the London Olympic Games. …Nike’s gear will be used by teams from many countries, including Russia, China, and of course, the US. What Nike and Ralph Lauren don’t do is make their own products, in the US or elsewhere – and this has become their competitive advantage.
It’s clear that the Chinese are good at producing low-cost garments. The US, on the other hand, is good at innovation and design, software and medical equipment. Meanwhile, Japan has a highly skilled labour force that uses technologically advanced equipment to produce cars and electrical equipment.
The Italians, of course, are known for their fabrics and fashions. And Australia exports its raw materials to the world. We have an abundance of natural resources that we cannot use and are able to sell the surplus to other countries, giving us a world market of over 7 billion people.
Everyone benefits when countries specialise in the type of production at which they’re relatively most efficient. This includes the millions of people in emerging markets who have climbed out of poverty because of the free flow of goods