What went wrong with global financial markets? In a nutshell: The implosion of the brave new world of modern finance, and the economic crisis that followed, was rooted in the idea that free and unregulated capital markets always work for the public good, and are all that is needed for economic prosperity. The prologue to the crisis was a combination of cheap money, deregulation and a race for returns by executives undeterred by the associated risks.
When the housing bubble burst and financial markets collapsed in its wake, growth slumped worldwide as never before since the Great Depression. GDP in the advanced economies is expected to shrink about 4 percent this year. Total financial-sector losses in the world’s advanced economies stand at around US$1.6 trillion. The IMF estimates that losses of more than double this total are yet to come. Jobs will continue to be shed. Future generations are being saddled with an explosion of public debt. It will take years before we recover fully.
Despite all this pain, the remaining financial market participants gained significant benefits from government bailouts. The G20’s average headline support for the financial sector is more than 30 percent of GDP (including capital injections, guarantees, treasury lending and asset purchases, liquidity provision, and other central bank support). In our political response to this crisis, new forms of financing and fiscal burden-sharing will have to play a role. It is in this context that German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and I have advanced our proposal for a global financial-transaction tax (FTT).
Remaining financial-market participants are not pulling their weight in this crisis. But “Main Street” sees what happens on Wall Street — and in London and Frankfurt. Citizens are aware of the hundreds of billions of euros and dollars that have been used to prop up banks. Bonus payments in the financial sector now go hand in glove with massive job losses in the real economy.
I came to realize that the political answer to this crisis must encompass more than improved regulatory regimes, risk-management strategies and capital requirements. How governments handle the burden-sharing between Wall Street and Main Street will determine social cohesion, financial-market stability and political leaders’ reputations for years to come.
Of course, compensation payments and fees for government guarantees are being levied on banks participating in taxpayer-funded stabilization schemes. But that’s not enough. Financial-market participants need to demonstrate that they understand their role in causing the crisis and that they are willing to significantly contribute to preventing its recurrence.
A global financial-transaction tax, applied uniformly across the G20 countries and covering all financial transactions at a very low rate, is the obvious instrument of choice to ensure that all financial-market participants contribute equally. Steinmeier and I are suggesting that the G20 take concrete steps toward implementing an FTT of 0.05 percent on all trades of financial products within their jurisdictions, regardless of whether these trades occur on an exchange. National governments could establish a personal allowance to exempt retail investors.
Based on calculations by the Austrian Institute of Economic Research, which studied the possible effects of general FTTs on behalf of the Austrian government, a global FTT of 0.05 percent could yield up to US$690 billion per year, or about 1.4 percent of world GDP. Such a tax would not unduly burden financial-market participants, yet it would raise a significant amount of money to finance the costs of this crisis.
Financial-market participants are fighting tooth and nail not to pay their fair share, putting forward a number of arguments against an FTT to camouflage their resistance. Some of them argue that such a tax would lead to evasive reactions by market participants and have distorting effects. But such evasive actions by market participants would be almost impossible if the G20 stood united.
Trading volume on G20 and EU exchanges accounts for roughly 97 percent of total global trading in exchange-traded equities and about 94 percent of total volume in exchange-traded bonds. As the tax would be very low and would include transactions in exchange-based spot and derivatives markets and OTC markets, as well as all asset classes (equities, bonds, derivatives, and foreign exchange), there would not be much of a distorting effect, either. I don’t think such a tax would significantly impact market liquidity, but even if it did, a nudge towards buying and holding might not be such a bad thing.
The debate among finance ministers in London in the run-up to the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh revealed a basic agreement that the burdens imposed by the financial crisis ought to be shared in a fair manner. At the G20 summit, we should discuss what fair and equitable burden-sharing between taxpayers and financial-market participants should look like. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has registered initial support for such an idea from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. We are receiving a wave of interest and readiness for further dialogue on this topic within the EU and beyond.
There is a clear-cut case for a global FTT: It would be just, would do no harm, and would do a lot of good. If there is a better idea for fair burden-sharing between the world’s Main Streets and its Wall Streets, let’s hear it. If there isn’t, let’s have an FTT now.
Peer Steinbruck is the German minister of finance.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hypersonic missile carried a simple message to the West over Ukraine: Back off, and if you do not, Russia reserves the right to hit US and British military facilities. Russia fired a new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile known as “Oreshnik,” or Hazel Tree, at Ukraine on Thursday in what Putin said was a direct response to strikes on Russia by Ukrainian forces with US and British missiles. In a special statement from the Kremlin just after 8pm in Moscow that day, the Russian president said the war was escalating toward a global conflict, although he avoided any nuclear
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
RSS