米国の金融危機は世界史の転換点か、ウォール街の覇権を日本と中国が争う？

ｘｘｘ
９月15日、米国の証券会社リーマン・ブラザースのハタン、メリルリンチの身売りで表面化した金融危機は、単に「金融問題」にとどまらず、世界史の転換点になる可能性をはらんでいるように思われる。
リーマンは最後に韓国産業銀行に救済を求めて断られ、万策が尽きた。モルガン・スタンレーは中国の政府系投資ファンド「中国投資」に出資増を求める一方、三菱ＵＦＪフィナンシャル・グループにも出資を要請し、同グループは焼く９千億円を出資して筆頭株主になる見込みという。米国と東アジアの財力での力関係が逆転した1週間だ。
米政府は最大７千億ドル（約７５兆円）の不良債権を金融機関から買い取るなど、機敏で大胆な対策を打ち出している。だが来年度の財政赤字が４８２０億ドルと予想される米政府にその体力はなく、国債を増発するしかない。サブプライムローンの傷が大きい西欧も米国債を買い増す余力が乏しいから、巨額の外貨準備を持つ中国（約１・８兆ドル）日本（約１兆ドル）ロシア（約５千億ドル）などに頼らざるを得ないだろう。
米国が今回の危機を乗り越えたとしても、昨年８１５６億ドルもの貿易赤字を出し、年間２千億ドルもの戦費を費やす米国の経済・財政体質は急には変えられない。これまでは、ドルの威信があって海外からの資本が集まり、米国への資本の流入と流出（米国からの海外投資）の差が昨年６７７５億ドルあった。それで赤字を埋めてきたが、これは集めた金の大半を経営者の生活費にあてるネズミ講に似て長くは続かない。今回の危機はついに来るべきものがきた、と見るべきではないか。
ドルへの信用が失われれば、米国への資本の流入が減り、自転車操業は破綻する。旧ソ連はドイツの侵攻をはね返した軍事的威信をテコに東欧に君臨していたが、アフガニスタンでの敗北で威信を失い、本国までが崩壊した。ドルの威信の喪失もそれに近い影響を生じかねない。将来日本と中国がウォール街で覇権を争い、対立と協調を繰り返す形すら考えられる。ｘｘｘ

NYT: “The worst day for European stocks, until now, came when Gorbachev was ousted. That led to the fall of Communism. Today’s larger decline signals worries about the future of capitalism.”

WSJ: “[When the UK found itself bankrupted after WW2 and turned to the US for help,] the U.S. ... dictated terms that amounted to a withdrawal of Great Britain from the world stage. The U.S. is not yet in the position of Great Britain… [b]ut absent a more humble and realistic attitude toward capital in Washington, that is the path we’re headed down.”

Links: http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/from-the-collapse-of-communism-to/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122325757745406687.html

Here we reach the limit of labels. Hitler was a national socialist. To me that’s on the left, but yeah clearly he was on the right. Uh … that’s not right, I mean left … right.

My point is we need more not less of the free market. If you check out my blog, you can get a better idea of my opinion on this. I think F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom addresses this well. Both Germany and Russia had similarities in that both embraced a large degree of central planning. And both England and America also moved towards central planning in attempting to allow the state rather than free enterprise to fix their financial problems. So in that sense the problem was the same all around.

Currently Ben Bernanke is operating under a monetarist philosophy. He believes that the 1920s were a fine time, and the depression that followed was only because the Fed didn’t provide liquidity. However, I agree with the Austrians (Hayek, Mises), that the problem was the easy money policy of the 1920s which created a bubble. Bernanke has faith that monetary policy can be centrally planned, neither Hayek or Mises did (in the 1920s they predicted the approaching downturn). If Bernanke is right, the stock market should not be crashing today, it should be fine and dandy (he can save everything with more and more liquidity), if Hayek and Mises are right, we’re going to see the dollar on the ropes soon, potentially hyper-inflation (at least of the dollar, but possibly other fiat currencies as well). Instead of saving things, Bernanke will merely be adding inflation into the mix via money creation. Everyone keeps saying Bernanke is an expert on the depression era, and he is, but only through a monetarists lens. But what if that monetarism is wrong? What good is being an expert in flawed philosophy?

Because people relate monetarism to capitalism (it’s not), they will blame capitalism for the bad results of monetarist policy.

Obama, who seems to be the most viable candidate, top financial adviser is from the Chicago school. The Chicago school is where the monetarists comes from, only his adviser seems even further on the left than the usual monetarists. So I don’t see any fundamental help coming from Obama. In fact, I expect he and his advisers to thrash about a lot, heroically trying all kinds of things that won’t, while Obama speaks to the American people delivering inspirational sermons. The blame will never fall on the Fed for its monetarists policies, but instead on stupid Bush and capitalism. People will be so desperate, they’ll beg for just what they don’t need, more government.

Of course, this will be better than McCain. The old flint can’t tell socialism from capitalism. In a republican debate, Ron Paul suggested we ought to consider a commodity based currency (you know, like gold). That’s a free market solution to monetary policy. McCain was so idled he spat at Paul, “You’d better read Adam Smith.” He thought Paul was offering a socialist solution or something. Who knows what McCain was thinking. You should have saw Paul’s expression. Of course, Bush these days looks like a man whose had his puppy tortured and killed in front of him. He clearly hasn’t a clue, and just does what he’s told.

At first I was excited about Obama, because not only did he seem intelligent, he seemed antiwar. But since getting the nomination, I think he’s grown more and more belligerent. He wants more troops in Afghanistan, he wants to attack Pakistan, and he insists on a non-nuclear Iran. And his financial policy is basically the Chicago school (only more towards the left), which is what we’ve got now, and would continue to have under McCain.

So, I’m not optimistic about McCain or Obama.

Sorry for being so long winded.

Why assume people will “lurch” to the left? Why not “lurch” to the right as we saw in the thirties? You might be inclined to argue argument that way because you are only considering the US where the incumbent is on the right. In Europe, the right is often in opposition so assuming simplistically that people will blame the incumbent won’t give you any clear-cut guide to future political direction in the world.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=365

Does anyone seriously think that Gore would have gone into Iraq? What kind of screw-up could ever equal that? If Bush had left the American economy at an all time high… education… wait a minute, is there anything that didn`t get screwed up in the last 8 years?

I think that we can state safely that neither candidate represents a radical departure, despite their their clear differences on some issues. I mean, it is not like Obama would dramatically slash military spending or anything. Within the American “box”, however, Obama just plain makes more sense on just about every issue.

I had high, high hopes for Gore (to at least continue the Clinton status quo sans cigar) and now have high, high hopes for Obama. I don`t get to vote, however.

I shudder thinking of president Palin. The hockey moms that I know are bad enough. But a fundamentalist hockey mom with a gun!?