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-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
RSS