Editorial
of Nane Cantatore
The panic over the U.S. financial crisis seems to send confusion in Europe, including national solutions, collapses securities and questionable choices in various ways. But the situation is actually quite mixed, and perhaps the random order is the best way to deal with it. The European situation is very different from the U.S., for several reasons. First, the crisis affecting U.S. financial institutions heavily exposed a reality, with a loan portfolio heavily overvalued and excessive floating in the market, a situation aggravated by a heavy national commercial liability, by excessive private debt and a deficit that among tax cuts, war, social spending (the Bush administration has significantly increased spending for education and health) and 700 billion dollars of the Paulson package has grown to monstrous levels, we add a strong loss of competitiveness due to the obsolescence of infrastructure and de-industrialization and reduction of investment, which will only aggravate the crisis. In Europe the situation is markedly different, both because different countries are also in different situations, with a strong direct exposure in Britain, Ireland and Spain, where the race to easy credit and real estate has created serious risks, the Netherlands Belgium and weighed down by indirect risk, because their banks, far too large for national economies, have happily caught in the international market of derivatives, while France, Germany and Italy are much more away, beyond the indirect risks for some large banks such as Dexia in France (already stored to an ad hoc intervention) in Germany, Deutsche Bank and Unicredit Italia.Questa diversity is reflected in also in the differences between the measures taken by governments and the solution adopted, including thousands of controversy in the United States provides for the purchase of so-called toxic loans from the state, effectively restoring the banking assets at the expense of taxpayers, the European proposals, in fact France and Germany, would be the creation of guarantee funds on deposits. This means that there will be no actual outlay, but only that the depositors will be protected in If the banking crisis, which would bring a double benefit: first, would avoid the rush to withdraw their money from banks at risk, strengthening the confidence of savers and making the transition from less immediate crisis for financial institutions to collapse who are in dire straits, and secondly, because it is a measure for the benefit of depositors and banks, it would not help at all unfair to banks managed cheerfully, which explains the green light received from 'Antitrust in Europe. So we understand why it is preferable to a national approach to the establishment of a European fund, since the goal is to intervene on behalf of the holders all, therefore, citizens and businesses, rather than defending the banks, that is, persons who may issue shares and bonds in different markets. Moreover, the focus of prudential measures, which aim to avoid undue widening of a crisis that, as heavy, does not directly affect Europe, but only the various bubbles produced around the world due to excess liquidity finance cheerful. In short, is a way to make hay in the barn in front of the risks arising from lack of liquidity next venture and fluctuations in financial markets, and both governments to restore the function of protection and control of the economy which had substantially waived if not explicitly renounced in the name of neo-liberal dogmas. In other words, the purpose of this maneuver, and many other discrete measures taken by central banks in Europe, China, Russia and Japan, is to set out a sort of cordon sanitaire around the American economy that, in recent years, the artificial growth of the U.S. had trailed the rest of the world, now risks turning into a sort of black hole that sucks the money all over the world. 
0 comments:
Post a Comment