The world is in a panic, trying to respond to the financial tsunami put in motion by the collapse of the financial system in the US and other countries. It has been called the first depression since the 1930s. Although the US government passed a US$850 billion rescue package on Sept. 26, it still isn’t enough to revive the US economy.
A CNN report said that 59 percent of respondents to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll believed we are facing a global recession. On Oct. 8, the G7 financial heads simultaneously announced they were drastically cutting interest rates, while the UK government announced a £50 billion (US$86 billion) emergency bank bail-out.
The effects of this financial crisis, which were initially limited to the parts of the securities and financial sectors affected by the US subprime crisis, have now spilled into international real estate markets as well as US commercial real estate and high-tech manufacturing.
Internationally, it is even more worrying, as it will have an impact on consumer demand on a national or even regional level. Once consumption shrinks, we can expect the global economy to take a heavy blow.
It is frightening to see how Iceland, a Nordic country praised as one of the more exceptional emerging economies, a few days ago declared it was on the verge of bankruptcy — the first sovereign country to raise a warning as a result of the financial crisis.
This is no longer a matter concerning only individual manufacturers or industries.
Most problems are still restricted to the securities markets and the financial industry. All rescue plans and measures, or interest and exchange rate adjustments, have been aimed at saving financial institutions and guaranteeing depositors.
The fact of the matter is the third wave of the global economic crisis is gathering, as steeply rising unemployment rates are beginning to interact with another wave of inflation set in motion by sharp wage adjustments around the world.
Global inflationary pressures — big news for almost a year — have shown signs of abating in the past two weeks as oil, food and metal prices have stabilized, but sharply rising risk during the third quarter is now pushing these pressures toward a second peak.
The risks for the real economy brought by the explosion in metal, oil and food prices early this year has instantly been transformed into a political stability crisis in newly developing countries. This will of course have a substantial impact on the development of newly industrialized countries.
By the end of the second quarter, the prices of several key products had slowed. As we entered the third quarter, workers in different countries felt the sharp increase in cost of living and demanded wage hikes that had been frozen for a long time.
This set off a second wave of global inflationary pressures and it is estimated that global inflation will increase by more than 6 percent as a result.
The central banks in several emerging economies have taken anti-inflationary measures, mainly by restricting the money supply, which immediately resulted in flagging confidence and slowing exports. The central banks in many advanced countries, including Taiwan, had to deal with a different policy problem: Relaxed policies aimed at stimulating export confidence created new inflationary pressures. In microeconomic terms, the greatest impact came from sharply rising unemployment figures, reaching almost 7 percent, which created three new global economic risks.
First, the risk that “Chindia” will not be able to sustain their economic prosperity. An analysis by the Economist Intelligence Unit believes that China’s financial service industry policies are distorted, which has resulted in overinvestment in China’s real estate industry and basic raw materials sector.
The extension has resulted in large amounts of bad debt and failed investments, which may implicate China’s economy as a whole.
India has a big problem with a dangerously overheated economy. The Chinese economy is expected to experience several consecutive years of slowing growth, while India is running the risk of bursting the growing economic bubble. The development of these two countries will also crowd out Asian economic growth.
In addition, the explosive growth of international commodity prices has had an impact on the speed of international economic growth, while at the same time destroying profit prospects for countries exporting staple products.
This aspect of China’s and India’s problems are particularly serious.
Second, a dangerous trend exists with the appearance of new trade protectionism. An increasing number of international conflicts over unfair competition resulting from asymmetric labor costs and exceptionally undervalued exchange rates have destroyed the global trade order.
Third, the risk exists that regional political and economic conflicts will be expanded. The conflicts between Iraq and Iran and the US and Israel have been a major factor in global oil price instability.
Spreading terrorist activities and increased border security and border controls are serious threats to international investments and trade developments, as well as to the cross-border movement of human resources and capital.
The development of these negative situations and their possible extended impact are almost unbearable to a Taiwanese economy that is highly dependent on external trade. The government should immediately give up any thought of the economy taking a turn for the better in the fourth quarter and instead prepare for the possibility of three to five years of economic difficulties.
The government and the private sector need a quick and ruthless plan to stabilize and revive the situation. What are these policies?
Bert Lim is president of World Economics Society (WES) and director of the WES Lim Institute for Public Policy Study.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS