As Greece hangs by a thread because of its sovereign debt crisis, US economic recovery lags and the global stock market teeters on the brink of disaster, US President Barack Obama finally unveiled his highly anticipated jobs stimulus package last week. The proposed US$447 billion American Jobs Act includes tax cuts for workers and businesses, increased spending on infrastructure, and subsidies for state and local governments — it basically amounts to slashing taxes while increasing public spending. Although responses to the plan have been polarized, it has still received more support than rejection among industrial, government and academic circles. However, when looking at the highly frustrated stock markets in Europe and the US, it seems stock traders are not confident that the jobs package will have a positive effect on the global economy.
The Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) believes Obama is on the right track with this plan, but the increasing vitriol of party politics in the US is a huge impediment for Obama as he tries to get an unamended version of the stimulus package passed in Congress. Although Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is pessimistic about the proposed act, he still lauds the bill for its potential to significantly decrease unemployment. Besides cutting taxes — an apparent effort to meet Republicans -halfway — and placing more importance on infrastructure, Obama’s proposal also proposes subsidizing local governments to pay teachers’ salaries and renovate schools. Compared with previous policies that injected money into the market, an increase in public spending to ameliorate infrastructure as a central goal would be more effective in stimulating the weakened economy.
Most major countries have relaxed monetary policies by printing more money and injecting it into the financial system as a quick fix for impending systemic and liquidity crises. This does allow a patient on the verge of death to continue breathing, but it does not do enough to get the global economy out of the emergency room. In particular, injecting money into markets creates an array of adverse side effects.
The big Wall Street banks were the chief offenders in the global financial crisis, but the US government still bailed them out because they were considered “too big to fail,” meaning taxpayers were left paying for the mistakes of these financial monsters. Not only did those who were responsible escape punishment, but most of the executives who committed egregious mistakes were also given lucrative severance packages. Wall Street continued to manipulate highly leveraged risk assets because bank executives remained solely concerned with their short-term profits, keeping the financial system stuck in a highly unstable and volatile state.
Furthermore, relaxed monetary policy generates high liquidity, lowering the cost of capital. It eliminates systemic and liquidity crises, but because the public still lacks confidence, they save more and spend less, weakening consumer demand.
With most businesses still trying to recover from the heavy losses suffered during the financial crisis, they are not willing to make more investments even if they do have the money. Therefore, this flood of capital has failed to enter the real economy, meaning few jobs were created. Instead, this money is going straight to housing, stock and commodity markets, where it is used for wild speculation in the name of avoiding risk and maintaining value, in effect creating a bubble of rapidly increasing asset prices.
This has produced a contradictory and asymmetric situation: Markets don’t lack capital, yet the government insists on quantitative easing, with the result that the inflow of money causes asset prices to increase at an alarming rate. In this way, the financial market is becoming a paradise for speculators, exacerbating inflation and resulting in a sharp rise in the public misery index.
Another important aspect of this trend is that the real economy is suffering from lack of investor confidence and remains incapable of stimulating job growth and increasing real incomes, resulting in a widening gap between the rich and the poor. The simultaneous existence of a stagnant economy and an overheating asset bubble is subtly brewing into what economist Nouriel Roubini, also known as “Dr Doom,” calls the “perfect storm.”
Looking at world economic events from this perspective, we see that if monetary policies continue to be used, and if governments are the lender of last resort, then the overall effectiveness of such policies has been exhausted.
If at this point governments switch to fiscal methods, increase spending, boost infrastructure and create demand in a return to Keynesian economics, the world just might get through this massive economic recession. Of course, most governments are weighed down with monumental debt, fiscal deficits and ineffectual politics. Thus, any call for more spending risks being labeled a failure from the start, while governments are accused of passing debt to later generations, making such policies unlikely.
However, Taiwanese politicians could still learn from Obama’s goal of creating jobs.
Translated by Kyle Jeffcoat
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS