Now that the economic crisis looks less threatening (at least for the moment) and forecasters are spying “green shoots” of recovery, an ever more encompassing blame game is unfolding. The financial crisis provides an apparently endless opportunity for unmasking deceit, malfeasance and corruption. But we are not quite sure who and what should be unmasked.
Leading bankers were initially the most obvious culprits. They presided over institutions that made large profits for a substantial period of time by mispricing risk, and then argued for public support on the grounds that they were too big to fail. They appeared arrogant and overpaid, and were easily demonized.
But what about the political process? Why were the banks not more closely controlled and better regulated? It is not that politicians were “bought” in a simple sense; rather, they convinced themselves that financial innovation opened the gate to greater general prosperity, increased home ownership and, of course, popular support in elections.
Governments are now vulnerable and politicians are under attack almost everywhere. Administrations have collapsed in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland and Ireland. Riots and paralyzing strikes have crippled Thailand, France and Greece. In Kuwait, the government dismissed parliament. Britain is convulsed by a scandal about parliamentary expenses that has no equivalent since the attacks on “old corruption” in the early 19th century.
Recriminations after financial crises have a long history and they recur in regular cycles. The stock exchange boom of the early 1870s was followed by a collapse in 1873 and a witch-hunt for those responsible. In 1907, J.P. Morgan was first viewed as the savior of the market and then as the enemy of the commonweal. In the 1930s, bankers and finance ministers were accused. But for the rest of the 20th century, the backlash cycle seemed to have stopped.
DYSFUNCTION
Today the attacks are not limited to the political and financial establishment. Critics are trying to identify the ideas as well as the interests that were responsible for financial and economic dysfunction. In this respect, the contemporary crisis is unlike the historical analogies in that it looks as if financial innovation was driven by a set of intellectual and even technological innovations.
Since it is an economic crisis, most people seeking its intellectual roots are tempted to begin with economists who, with a few exceptions, look particularly discredited. The founder of the rational expectations revolution, Robert Lucas, is endlessly quoted as having stated in 2003 in his presidential address to the American Economic Association that the “central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.”
It is also clear that academic economists had an impact on policy. Larry Summers, now the highly influential director of US President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, concluded as a young economist that “financial and monetary shocks are less important sources of depression than we had suspected.”
If the economy was foolproof, and if so many good policy options existed to deal with crisis and distress, there was less need to avoid mistakes. Things could always be set right retrospectively.
Other academic disciplines have looked rather smugly at the public humiliation of their colleagues in economics. The non-mathematical appear to have their revenge as the perils of over-reliance on complex symbolic notation and arcane formulas are relentlessly exposed.
In fact, developments or fashions in other academic disciplines and in the general culture contributed at least as much to a willingness to engage in absurd risks and to provide and accept valuations of complex and inherently unfathomable securities. The general cultural developments are sometimes termed postmodernism, which involves the replacement of reason by intuition, feeling and allusion.
AMBIGUOUS
But postmodernism has itself been generated by technology, with which it has a deeply ambiguous relationship.
In contrast to a steam engine or an old-fashioned automobile, whose operations were easily comprehensible, modern automobiles or airplanes are so complicated that their operators have no idea how the technology they are using actually works. The Internet has created a world in which strict logic is less important than the juxtaposition of striking images.
Postmodernism moves away from the rational culture of the so-called “modern era.” Many people are finding more analogies with medieval life, in which humans were surrounded by processes that were difficult to comprehend. As a result, they thought they lived in a world populated by demons and mysterious forces.
The recent era of global finance — perhaps we should speak of it as being past? — differed from the financial surge of a century ago. Its cultural manifestations also appeared to be novel. It was playful, allusive and edgy — in short, postmodern. It treated tradition and history not as a constraint but as a source of ironic reference.
At the era’s height, major financial players built vastly expensive collections of highly abstract modern art. A postmodern neglect or disdain for reality generated the sense that the whole world was constantly shifting and malleable and might be as transient and meaningless as stock quotations.
An alliance was formed between financial experts who thought they were selling truly innovative ideas, a political elite that endorsed the philosophy of “regulation lite” and a cultural climate that pushed experimentation and the rejection of traditional values. The result was that every sort of value — including financial values — came to be seen as arbitrary and fundamentally absurd.
When incomprehension no longer produces new heights of prosperity but rather economic collapse and failure, it is not surprising that it turns to anger. Finding out who is to blame becomes more and more like the late medieval and early modern search for witches: a way of making sense of a disorderly and hostile universe.
Harold James is professor of history and international affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, and professor of history at the European University Institute, Florence.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS