Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion Junk for code
parliament house.gif
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
South Australian Links
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

where's the global governance? « Previous | |Next »
October 8, 2008

The global financial system has been under severe stress for more than a year, and there should have been carefully thought-out contingency plans ready to roll out in case the markets melted down. Obviously, there weren’t, and so the global financial system has been without any form of global governance. As far as I can see any form of rescue of the global financial system is one that will almost surely involve the governments of the nation states taking partial, temporary ownership of that system:

PinnIngramFT1.jpg Ingram Pinn

The de facto leadership of the global financial system has been the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve because the US was the hub; but both institutions have shown themselves to be inadequate in terms of their governance. After a long period of denial, they have been simply making it up as they go along, and in doing so they have not shown global leadership.

As the recession in the US is now going global, with industrial economies on the brink, and trade and financial shocks threatening the developing world, it sure does not look as if the IMF can save the world. The International Monetary Fund has been noticeable mainly for its absence and it has been sidelined. Nouriel Roubini advocates a multi-pronged policy approach to the crisis, including:

1) coordinated interest rate cuts by all major world economies; 2) a move by the U.S. Federal Reserve to guarantee that it will provide liquidity in the event of any major bank run; 3) increased Fed action to provide short-term liquidity to non-bank actors that lend to corporations; and, if that doesn't work, 4) a willingness to make short-term loans directly to corporations.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 7:34 AM | | Comments (11)


"Where's the global governance?"
Did we really expect to find one?
After all globally we can't even get behind a system of international law.
I suspect that no matter what national governments do for financial institutions, individual boards and CEOs will treat finacial intervention as a free go at a giant jam pot.
Today Obama, during the candidates debate, pointed out that certain execs saved in the Fannie and Freddie bailout immediately went on a $400,000 junket.

we might have expected some leadership from the European Central Bank. Europe cannot co-ordinate itself let alone participate in a wider global governance.

The European Central Bank raised interest rates in the crisis in July; its growth predictions this year have been delusional and it has neglected its global role.

The only global things that move fast enough to do anything without 10 years notice are capital and rumour. As we're seeing now, when they work together they make things happen incredibly fast.

I'm not sure that this money that is propping up economies around the world is actually real money.
Like the boy that sticks his finger in the dike. At some point he decides to run like shit.

There is some movement towards global governance. The world's major central banks last night followed the Reserve Bank of Australia and cut interest rates in a co-ordinated effort.

I see that the world's leading finance ministers are meeting in Washington to discuss ways to contain the widening credit crisis. Not before time. The British are calling for co-ordinated action by Europe and so avoid "everyman for himself". The template for the action is the UK bank's bailout.

The Group of Seven - the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Japan - have pledged a coordinated response but stopped short of backing a British plan to guarantee lending between banks.

So what do they plan to do? They have agreed that they can no longer afford a country-by-country, case-by-case approach to crisis management after months of turmoil.

I reckon that there'd be few takers amongst the G7 finance ministries for the purist approach of allowing banks to fail, with the "creative destruction" giving a leaner and cleaner system--the view of the "Austrian school" of economics. Nationalisation rather than a free-market solution looks more likely---as argued here by Larry Elliott and Heather Stewart in The Guardian

the G7 countries said they would use all tools to prevent systemically important financial institutions from failing; to ensure that bank-deposit insurance programs are solid; to ensure that banks can raise capital from private or government sources; to take steps to unfreeze credit and money markets, and ensure that financial institutions have access to liquidity.

No common action or plan. The above are more principles.

The IMF says that we are on the brink of systematic meltdown and the finance ministers from the G20 can only come up with a pledge to work together more closely to combat the financial crisis.

The G7 says that they will take the steps necessary ---do they know what is necessary?

Global governance has been over due since the fall of the Berlin Wall ( in fact "governance" has come to mean precisely the opposite to what it should mean in the hands of neolib pedants- remember what AUSFTA is really about! ).
Not forthcoming. All we have had is neoliberalist hands-off globalism of the lazy casino capitalist sort, in place of meaningful, worked on, long term development of human and material resources.
Now, we have an out of control global financial system like we have global warming.
And you'll see about as much of done on one as the other, and for much the same reasons.
"Vive Le Regime Ancien!".