Archive for the ‘Financial melt-down’ Category

Subprime lobbyists in $370m battle

Saturday, May 9th, 2009

– Want to know who some of those responsible for the current economic mess are?   Read the following.

= = = = = = =   = = = = = = =   = = = = = = =

The top 25 US originators of subprime mortgages – the risky assets that sparked the global financial crisis – spent almost $370m in Washington over the past decade on lobbying and campaign donations as they tried to ward off tighter regulation of their industry, an investigation has shown.

The study, which will be released today by the Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit investigative journalism organisation, is likely to strengthen public calls for much tougher financial regulation in the US.

It shows that most of the top 25 originators, most of which are now bankrupt, were either owned or heavily financed by the nation’s largest banks, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan and Bank of America. Together, they originated $1,000bn in subprime mortgages in 2005-07 – almost three-quarters of the total.

The banks, which have received the vast bulk of the $700bn in troubled asset relief funds issued since last October, also supported the lobbying effort to prevent tighter regulation of the subprime market.

Nine of the top 10 lenders were in California, one of the states badly affected by the housing crisis that emerged after a surge in lending to riskier, or subprime, borrowers, many of whom were forced to foreclose.

More…

World Bank demands poverty action

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

The head of the World Bank has warned of a “human catastrophe” in the world’s poorest countries unless more is done to tackle the global economic crisis.

Speaking at the end of the World Bank’s spring meeting, Robert Zoellick also called on rich nations to do more to help tackle global poverty.

He said the crisis meant targets on tackling poverty in the poorest countries were unlikely to be met.

The World Bank says an extra 53 million people are at risk of extreme poverty.

More…

Ten principles for a Black Swan-proof world

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

– “The Black Swan theory (in Nassim Nicholas Taleb‘s version) refers to a large-impact, hard-to-predict, and rare event beyond the realm of normal expectations.”  -taken from a WikiPedia article here.

– Taleb has now come up with a list of ten things we (all of us) should do to prevent Black Swan surprises.

– Like a lot of very logical things which we (humanity) should do in our own best interests, this sounds good.   But, given human nature, what are the real chances that we’ll actually do these things?

= = = = = = = * = = = = = = = * = = = = = = =

By Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Published: April 7 2009 20:02

1. What is fragile should break early while it is still small. Nothing should ever become too big to fail. Evolution in economic life helps those with the maximum amount of hidden risks – and hence the most fragile – become the biggest.

2. No socialisation of losses and privatisation of gains. Whatever may need to be bailed out should be nationalised; whatever does not need a bail-out should be free, small and risk-bearing. We have managed to combine the worst of capitalism and socialism. In France in the 1980s, the socialists took over the banks. In the US in the 2000s, the banks took over the government. This is surreal.

3. People who were driving a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus. The economics establishment (universities, regulators, central bankers, government officials, various organisations staffed with economists) lost its legitimacy with the failure of the system. It is irresponsible and foolish to put our trust in the ability of such experts to get us out of this mess. Instead, find the smart people whose hands are clean.

4. Do not let someone making an “incentive” bonus manage a nuclear plant – or your financial risks. Odds are he would cut every corner on safety to show “profits” while claiming to be “conservative”. Bonuses do not accommodate the hidden risks of blow-ups. It is the asymmetry of the bonus system that got us here. No incentives without disincentives: capitalism is about rewards and punishments, not just rewards.

5. Counter-balance complexity with simplicity. Complexity from globalisation and highly networked economic life needs to be countered by simplicity in financial products. The complex economy is already a form of leverage: the leverage of efficiency. Such systems survive thanks to slack and redundancy; adding debt produces wild and dangerous gyrations and leaves no room for error. Capitalism cannot avoid fads and bubbles: equity bubbles (as in 2000) have proved to be mild; debt bubbles are vicious.

6. Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they come with a warning. Complex derivatives need to be banned because nobody understands them and few are rational enough to know it. Citizens must be protected from themselves, from bankers selling them “hedging” products, and from gullible regulators who listen to economic theorists.

7. Only Ponzi schemes should depend on confidence. Governments should never need to “restore confidence”. Cascading rumours are a product of complex systems. Governments cannot stop the rumours. Simply, we need to be in a position to shrug off rumours, be robust in the face of them.

8. Do not give an addict more drugs if he has withdrawal pains. Using leverage to cure the problems of too much leverage is not homeopathy, it is denial. The debt crisis is not a temporary problem, it is a structural one. We need rehab.

9. Citizens should not depend on financial assets or fallible “expert” advice for their retirement. Economic life should be definancialised. We should learn not to use markets as storehouses of value: they do not harbour the certainties that normal citizens require. Citizens should experience anxiety about their own businesses (which they control), not their investments (which they do not control).

10. Make an omelette with the broken eggs. Finally, this crisis cannot be fixed with makeshift repairs, no more than a boat with a rotten hull can be fixed with ad-hoc patches. We need to rebuild the hull with new (stronger) materials; we will have to remake the system before it does so itself. Let us move voluntarily into Capitalism 2.0 by helping what needs to be broken break on its own, converting debt into equity, marginalising the economics and business school establishments, shutting down the “Nobel” in economics, banning leveraged buyouts, putting bankers where they belong, clawing back the bonuses of those who got us here, and teaching people to navigate a world with fewer certainties.

Then we will see an economic life closer to our biological environment: smaller companies, richer ecology, no leverage. A world in which entrepreneurs, not bankers, take the risks and companies are born and die every day without making the news.

In other words, a place more resistant to black swans.

To the original article…

What will global warming look like? Scientists point to Australia

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

“Farmers who once grew 60% of the nation’s produce are walking off their land or selling their water rights to the state and federal government. With rainfall in the region at lower than 50% of average for more than a decade, Australia is witnessing the collapse of its agricultural sector and the nation’s ability to feed itself.”

Reporting from The Murray-Darling Basin, Australia — Frank Eddy pulled off his dusty boots and slid into a chair, taking his place at the dining room table where most of the critical family issues are hashed out. Spreading hands as dry and cracked as the orchards he tends, the stout man his mates call Tank explained what damage a decade of drought has done .

“Suicide is high. Depression is huge. Families are breaking up. It’s devastation,” he said, shaking his head. “I’ve got a neighbor in terrible trouble. Found him in the paddock, sitting in his [truck], crying his eyes out. Grown men — big, strong grown men. We’re holding on by the skin of our teeth. It’s desperate times.”

A result of climate change?

“You’d have to have your head in the bloody sand to think otherwise,” Eddy said.

They call Australia the Lucky Country, with good reason. Generations of hardy castoffs tamed the world’s driest inhabited continent, created a robust economy and cultivated an image of irresistibly resilient people who can’t be held down. Australia exports itself as a place of captivating landscapes, brilliant sunshine, glittering beaches and an enviable lifestyle.

Look again. Climate scientists say Australia — beset by prolonged drought and deadly bush fires in the south, monsoon flooding and mosquito-borne fevers in the north, widespread wildlife decline, economic collapse in agriculture and killer heat waves — epitomizes the “accelerated climate crisis” that global warming models have forecast.

With few skeptics among them, Australians appear to be coming to an awakening: Adapt to a rapidly shifting climate, and soon. Scientists here warn that the experience of this island continent is an early cautionary tale for the rest of the world.

“Australia is the harbinger of change,” said paleontologist Tim Flannery, Australia’s most vocal climate change prophet. “The problems for us are going to be greater. The cost to Australia from climate change is going to be greater than for any developed country. We are already starting to see it. It’s tearing apart the life-support system that gives us this world.”

More…

Climate Change Effects In California

Monday, April 13th, 2009

A biennial report released April 1 by a team of experts that advises California’s governor suggests that climate changes are poised to affect virtually every sector of the state’s economy and most of its ecosystems. Significant impacts will likely occur under even moderate scenarios of global greenhouse emissions and associated climate change, but without action, severe and costly climate change impacts are possible across the state.

The state Climate Action Team (CAT) report uses updated, comprehensive scientific research to outline environmental and economic climate impacts. Its authors include Dan Cayan, a climate scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, and a member of the CAT steering team.

A broad collaboration of scientists, mostly from state academic and government agencies, provided a large set of technical papers that form the underpinnings for much of the CAT report. Assessments include the impacts of sea level rise, higher temperatures, increased wildfires, decreased water supplies, increased energy demand, among others, on the state’s environment, industries and economic prosperity. Each of the papers has undergone peer review by technical experts in private, public and governmental entities.

Impacts of climate change to California’s coast, agriculture, forest and communities have been known and studied for years; however the studies that support the CAT report suggest that actual greenhouse gas emissions are outstripping 2006 projections. Of particular interest are the several papers focusing on the impacts of a rise in sea levels to coastal communities and increased potential of wildfires to residential areas.

“The Climate Action Team plays an essential role in the implementation of the state’s climate initiatives and is guided by these important technical studies to ensure policy decisions are based on sound science,” said Linda Adams, Secretary for Environmental Protection and Chair of the state’s CAT. “Any delay in fighting global warming would be detrimental to our economic stability – costing us billions of dollars and dampening the state’s most important economic sectors. Taking immediate action on climate change is essential to slow the projected rate of warming. We also need to make smarter decisions in order to anticipate and adapt to the changes.”

More…

 – Note, the red highlighting is mine.

China Flexes its Muscles and Finds Support in a Bid to Dump the Dollar as the World’s Main Reserve Currency

Sunday, April 12th, 2009

titanic.jpgI’ve said before that there’s another big shoe waiting to drop.  

– One has to smile thinking about the folks in Washington, D.C. thinking that if they can just get the bail-out monies distributed correctly that it will light a fire and the U.S. economy will roar back to life.   Maybe, but the world is bigger than just what’s happening in the U.S. Capital.

– We owe China a huge sum of money and no one has made a convincing case, that I’ve seen, that there’s a pathway open before us via which the U.S. becomes a net generator of wealth again.   Rather, on the path we’re on, we will very likely continue to increase our foreign debt as we essentially ‘kite’ our checks by selling enough U.S. bonds this year to pay off our debt obligations from last year and have a bit left over to spend on pretending that we’re solvent.   Next year?   Repeat the same formula.

– This isn’t fooling anyone overseas.   But, the only reason they keep buying our bonds is to avoid the near-term pain if they stop and we’re forced to default on our debt either through simply not paying it or by cranking up the money printing presses and printing off enough to pay them.  Of course, printing money won’t really be paying them – because printing money we don’t really have will vastly devalue it and what they get in real value will be far less than what they are owed.

– But, the Chinese, among others, are not stupid.   They see the traps inherent in avoiding the short-term pain today and deferring the problem into a bigger and more profound  long-term pain later.   

– I think the article, below, is about China beginning to ‘face up’ to the problem they have with so much of their trade surplus money being invested in a  country (the U.S.) that is showing, more and more, that it simply doesn’t have and won’t have the ability to pay its debts back. 

– There’s another side to this as well.   China is, on the surface, a Capitalist powerhouse.   But, let’s not forget that it is also still a communist dictatorship run by the same folks who have had it as their central aim for many decades to remake the world in the image they want and to help China ascend to the dominate position in that new world.

 – Calculations are being made, I am sure, in China about how much damage they will sustain and how much we in the U.S. will sustain, if they simply stop buying our bonds and treasuries and let our economy crumble.   It won’t be pretty, everyone knows.   But, if at the end of it, China, with it’s huge cash reserves (even after it loses what it’s invested with the U.S., is still half way solvent and the U.S.,on the other hand, has transitioned from the sole world super-power into something far less – much as Britain went from an empire the sun never set on to a bunch of feisty folks on an island just west of mainland Europe, then China will have won the long term battle for dominance.

– I’m not saying it will turn out that way.   There are a lot of other big cards on the table and it is impossible to know how they will play out.  

  • Can China remain internally stable if the world goes through a major shakeup (vastly bigger than what we’re seeing now)?
  • Can the economic furnaces of the world ever really be restarted given that they only seem to be able to run on a model predicated on ever continuing growth and consumption in a world that grows smaller and more finite by the day?
  • Can any of this play out without being strongly overridden and washed out by the Global Climate Changes that we’ve already put into motion?

It may be that this squabble for world dominance between China and the U.S. is nothing more that a game of shuffleboard that everyone’s focused on – but that the game itself is being held on the Titanic and the date is April 14th, 1912.

= = = = = = = = = = = = =  * * * = = = = = = = = = = = = =

By Jason Simpkins
Managing Editor
Money Morning

Finance officials from Beijing in Moscow on Thursday held a videoconference to discuss the creation of a “supra-national reserve currency,” the latest evidence of the support China is getting from developing countries as it seeks to replace the U.S. dollar as the world’s main reserve currency.

This controversial proposal – and the support that it’s getting – also underscores China’s continued emergence as a growing global force in both the financial and political arenas. That’s a trend that successful global investors won’t be able to ignore.

The recent torrent of criticism to swirl around the dollar began with remarks by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.  Speaking last month at a press conference leading up to the recent Group 20 meeting in London, Premier Wen voiced his concern about the value of China’s large holdings of U.S. Treasuries.

We have lent a huge amount of money to the United States,” he said. “Of course, we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little bit worried. I request the U.S. to maintain its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of China’s assets.”

Of China’s $2 trillion in foreign currency holdings, about $1 trillion is invested in U.S. Treasuries and notes issued by other government affiliated agencies, such as Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE).

They are worried about forever-rising deficits, which may devalue Treasuries by pushing interest rates higher,” JP Morgan & Co. (JPM) analyst Frank Gong told The Associated Press. “Inside China, there has been a lot of debate about whether they should continue to buy Treasuries.”

Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the U.S. budget deficit would nearly triple from last year’s $455 billion – and would reach a staggering $1.2 trillion. And that was even before U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled his $787 billion in stimulus, bank-rescue and anti-foreclosure plans. And that massive projected shortfall also doesn’t include other fix-up initiatives that are sure to surface in the months ahead.

More…

Needed: A Fiscal Framework–Not a Stimulus

Monday, April 6th, 2009
“America ranks 22nd out of 23 high-income countries in public social outlays as a percent of national income (ahead only of Ireland), for health, pensions, income support, and other social services. “

The economic debate in the U.S. regarding the fiscal stimulus package has revealed, once again, the soft underbelly of modern economics. It’s perhaps inevitable that a public debate over the allocation of trillions of dollars of taxes and spending should be cacophonous and confused, but the poor quality of the scientific discussion about the fiscal stimulus plan is unjustified. Economists have not helped the public to sort out crucial issues in the debate, leaving public policy to a hurried mish-mash of conflicting interests.

The stimulus debate has centered heavily around the question of “bang for the buck,” that is, whether tax cuts or spending increases would produce more jobs. This perspective is very limited and misleading, however: the implications of tax cuts, for example, depend importantly on whether they are perceived to be temporary or permanent. A temporary tax cut is more likely to be saved, or used to pay down credit-card debt, than consumed, a lesson demonstrated by the failed $100 billion tax-rebate stimulus last spring.

There is a far more important point, however. The choice of spending versus taxes should turn first and foremost on the purposes of government, or on what economists quaintly call “the allocation of resources.” It’s silly to debate whether investing in a $100 million bridge creates more jobs than a $100 million tax cut if we really need the bridge! The American Society of Civil Engineers has credibly documented for years the crumbling state of U.S. infrastructure—roads, bridges, water supply, waste treatment, mass transit, toxic waste cleanup, dams and levees—and the urgent need for more than $2.2 trillion of investments for our wellbeing and competitiveness.

More…

Escape from the Zombie Food Court

Sunday, April 5th, 2009

– How can you not like Joe Bageant’s writing?   He’s just a laser beam.  We’re so deeply buried within the world we’ve created (what he calls the “American Hologram”), that it is really hard to see that there are other ways of looking at life and existence.  

– Joe has managed to step outside the mainstream consensus reality and here he’s bringing us a report of what it looks like from the outside looking in.   Good stuff!

= = = = = = = = = = =

Joe Bageant recently spoke at Berea College in Berea, Kentucky, Eastern Kentucky University at Lexington, and the Adler School of Professional Psychology in Chicago, where he was invited to speak on American consciousness and what he dubbed “The American Hologram,” in his book, Deer Hunting With Jesus. Here is a text version of the talks, assembled from his remarks at all three schools.

By Joe Bageant

I just returned from several months in Central America. And the day I returned I had iguana eggs for breakfast, airline pretzels for lunch and a $7 shot of Jack Daniels for dinner at the Houston Airport, where I spent two hours listening to a Christian religious fanatic tell about Obama running a worldwide child porn ring out of the White House. Entering the country shoeless through airport homeland security, holding up my pants because they don’t let old men wear suspenders through security, well, I knew I was back home in the land of the free.

Anyway, here I am with you good people asking myself the first logical question: What the hell is a redneck writer supposed to say to a prestigious school of psychology? Why of all places am I here? It is intimidating as hell. But as Janna Henning and Sharrod Taylor here have reassured me that all I need to do is talk about is what I write about. And what I write about is Americans, and why we think and behave the way we so. To do that here today I am forced to talk about three things — corporations, television and human spirituality.

No matter how smart we may think we are, the larger world cannot and does not exist for most of us in this room, except through media and maybe through the shallow experience of tourism, or in the minority instance, we may know of it through higher education. The world however, is not a cultural history course, a National Geographic special or recreational destination. It is a real place with many fast developing disasters, economic and ecological collapse being just two. The more aware among us grasp that there is much at stake. Yet, even the most informed and educated Americans have cultural conditioning working against them round the clock.

More…

What we need vs. what we’ll get

Friday, April 3rd, 2009

– The current G-20 meeting has stirred a lot of commentary and hope.   The world has a lot of problems and there’s always the possibility and the hope, when a significant number of world leaders come together to talk about those problems, that they’ll make decisions that will improve things.The Browns and the Obamas

– Below, is an analysis by George Friedman of STRATFOR of the G-20 meeting and what’s likly to come out of it along with a look at a follow-on NATO meeting and an Obama-EU summit.  There’s even discussion of President Obama’s upcoming visit to Turkey, which will be his last stop on his current international trip.

– Other commentators might go through these same subjects; G-20, NATO, EU and Turkey and come to somewhat different conclusions about their meanings and prospects but I seriously doubt that anyone could seriously avoid my final conclusion – that what the world needs is not what the world is going to get out of all these meetings and pontifications.

– In the near-term, we need unified global strategies to pull the world out of the current economic melt-down.

– And, following immediately on the heels of such economic repairs, we need a deep recognition that mankind’s current dominate economic system, Capitalism, even when working well,  cannot continue as it is currently configured.   Its fundamental requirements of continuing growth and consumption to fuel itself, are axiomatically inconsistent with the fact that we live on a planet with finite resources.

– And, once we’ve rethought our basic economic systems and globally began to reorient them into something that focuses on sustainability rather than growth, then we need to move onto how we, globally, are going to defuse all the ecological and climatic destruction we’ve set in motion which is threatening to reset our climate and to initiate another major ecological die-off like the one that took out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

– That’s all.  It’s not much to ask, right?   Surely,the best and the brightest of our national leaders can see that these are the paths forward?

– Well, I wish I thought so, but I don’t.  Friedman’s analysis makes clear that in spite of the fact that we need radical new thinking, these meetings will end up driven by narrow national interests as nation jockeys against nation to see who’s going to do the work and pay the bills.

There’s your future, folks.– It’s as if we’re all sitting in a lifeboat at sea and we’re having meeting after meeting about how to best arrange the seating in the boat to determine who has to row and who gets to just sit and benefit. And all the time, the boat is slowing but inexorably sinking but no one can be bothered to talk about that because… because?     Damned if I know.

– Here’s George Freidman’s analysis.   See what you think:

= = = = = = = = = = =

Three major meetings will take place in Europe over the next nine days: a meeting of the G-20, a NATO summit and a meeting of the European Union with U.S. President Barack Obama. The week will define the relationship between the United States and Europe and reveal some intra-European relationships. If not a defining moment, the week will certainly be a critical moment in dealing with economic, political and military questions. To be more precise, the meeting will be about U.S.-German relations. Not only is Germany the engine of continental Europe, its policies diverge the most sharply from those of the United States. In some ways, U.S.-German relations have been the core of the U.S.-European relationship, so this marathon of summits will focus on the United States and Germany.

Although the meetings deal with a range of issues — the economy and Afghanistan chief among them — the core question on the table will be the relationship between Europe and the United States following the departure of George W. Bush and the arrival of Barack Obama. This is not a trivial question. The European Union and the United States together account for more than half of global gross domestic product. How the two interact and cooperate is thus a matter of global significance. Of particular importance will be the U.S. relationship with Germany, since the German economy drives the Continental dynamic. This will be the first significant opportunity to measure the state of that relationship along the entire range of issues requiring cooperation.

Relations under Bush between the United States and the two major European countries, Germany and France, were unpleasant to say the least. There was tremendous enthusiasm throughout most of Europe surrounding Obama’s election. Obama ran a campaign partly based on the assertion that one of Bush’s greatest mistakes was his failure to align the United States more closely with its European allies, and he said he would change the dynamic of that relationship.

There is no question that Obama and the major European powers want to have a closer relationship. But there is a serious question about expectations. From the European point of view, the problem with Bush was that he did not consult them enough and demanded too much from them. They are looking forward to a relationship with Obama that contains more consultation and fewer demands. But while Obama wants more consultation with the Europeans, this does not mean he will demand less. In fact, one of his campaign themes was that with greater consultation with Europe, the Europeans would be prepared to provide more assistance to the United States. Europe and Obama loved each other, but for very different reasons. The Europeans thought that the United States under Obama would ask less, while Obama thought the Europeans would give more.

More…

– research thanks to Michael M.

The Quiet Coup

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

– This article just out in the September, 2009 Atlantic Magazine is well worth a read.   It’s the best thing I’ve seen about the financial crisis since the piece about The End of Wall Street a month or two ago.

– The lead-in from the article:

The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.

– This is well worth a read – don’t skip it!

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

One thing you learn rather quickly when working at the International Monetary Fund is that no one is ever very happy to see you. Typically, your “clients” come in only after private capital has abandoned them, after regional trading-bloc partners have been unable to throw a strong enough lifeline, after last-ditch attempts to borrow from powerful friends like China or the European Union have fallen through. You’re never at the top of anyone’s dance card.

The reason, of course, is that the IMF specializes in telling its clients what they don’t want to hear. I should know; I pressed painful changes on many foreign officials during my time there as chief economist in 2007 and 2008. And I felt the effects of IMF pressure, at least indirectly, when I worked with governments in Eastern Europe as they struggled after 1989, and with the private sector in Asia and Latin America during the crises of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Over that time, from every vantage point, I saw firsthand the steady flow of officials—from Ukraine, Russia, Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, and elsewhere—trudging to the fund when circumstances were dire and all else had failed.The future?

Every crisis is different, of course. Ukraine faced hyperinflation in 1994; Russia desperately needed help when its short-term-debt rollover scheme exploded in the summer of 1998; the Indonesian rupiah plunged in 1997, nearly leveling the corporate economy; that same year, South Korea’s 30-year economic miracle ground to a halt when foreign banks suddenly refused to extend new credit.

But I must tell you, to IMF officials, all of these crises looked depressingly similar. Each country, of course, needed a loan, but more than that, each needed to make big changes so that the loan could really work. Almost always, countries in crisis need to learn to live within their means after a period of excess—exports must be increased, and imports cut—and the goal is to do this without the most horrible of recessions. Naturally, the fund’s economists spend time figuring out the policies—budget, money supply, and the like—that make sense in this context. Yet the economic solution is seldom very hard to work out.

No, the real concern of the fund’s senior staff, and the biggest obstacle to recovery, is almost invariably the politics of countries in crisis.

Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason—the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit—and, most of the time, genteel—oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are the controlling shareholders. When a country like Indonesia or South Korea or Russia grows, so do the ambitions of its captains of industry. As masters of their mini-universe, these people make some investments that clearly benefit the broader economy, but they also start making bigger and riskier bets. They reckon—correctly, in most cases—that their political connections will allow them to push onto the government any substantial problems that arise.

More…

– Research thanks to Alan T.