SPONSORED BY:

There Is a Silver Lining

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Volcker has also argued that the highly complex financial system was not nearly as stable as people believed and that far-reaching efforts were needed to regulate and stabilize it. Now these issues will get attention at the highest level. The fear on Wall Street is that a Democratic administration would overregulate. But look at who is advising Barack Obama—Buffett, Volcker, former Treasury secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. It is more likely that what will come from their efforts will be a better-regulated financial system that, while producing less-extravagant profits, will be more stable and secure.

The financial industry itself is likely to shrink, and that's not a bad thing, either. It has ballooned dramatically in size. Curry points out that "30 percent of S&P 500 profits last year were earned by financial firms, and U.S. consumers were spending $800 billion more than they earned every year. As a result, most of our top math Ph.D.s were being pulled into nonproductive financial engineering instead of biotech research and fuel technology. Capital expenditures went into retail construction instead of critical infrastructure." The crisis will stop the misallocation of human and financial resources and redirect them in more-productive ways. If some of the smart people now on Wall Street end up building better models of energy usage and efficiency, that would be a net gain for the economy.

The American economy remains extremely dynamic and flexible. Even now, the most surprising data continue to be how resilient the economy has been through all these shocks. That will not last, especially if the panic persists. But even so, it highlights the fact that the U.S. economy has underlying virtues and, after a tough recession, will probably recover faster than many can now imagine. The rise in emerging-market economies, which have been powering global growth, will not vanish overnight, either.

A new discipline would benefit America in a more general sense, too. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has operated in the world with no constraints or checks on its power. This has not been good for its foreign policy. It has made Washington arrogant, lazy and careless. Its decision making has resembled General Motors' business strategy in the 1970s and 1980s, a process driven largely by a vast array of internal factors but little sense of urgency or awareness of outside pressures. We didn't have to make strategic choices; we could have it all. We could make blunders, anger the world, rupture alliances, waste resources, wage war incompetently—it didn't matter. We had more than enough room for error—lots of error.

But it's a different world out there. If Iraq cast a shadow on U.S. political and military credibility, this financial crisis has eroded America's economic and financial power. In the short run, there has been a flight to safety—toward dollars and T-bills—but in the long run, countries are likely to seek greater independence from an unstable superpower. The United States will now have to work to attract capital to its shores, and manage its fiscal house better. We will have to persuade countries to join in our foreign endeavors. We will have to make strategic choices. We cannot deploy missile interceptors along Russia's borders, draw Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, and still expect Russian cooperation on Iran's nuclear program. We cannot noisily denounce Chinese and Arab foreign investments in America one day and then hope that they will keep buying $4 billion worth of T-bills another day. We cannot keep preaching to the world about democracy and capitalism while our own house is so wildly out of order.

It's a fundamental American belief that competition is good—in business, athletics and life. Checks and balances are James Madison's crucial mechanisms, exposing and countering abuse and arrogance and forcing discipline on people. This discipline will be painful for a country that has gotten used to having it all. But it will make us much stronger in the long run. If we can learn the right lessons from this crisis, the United States will once more be playing by its own rules. And that cannot be bad for us.

© 2008

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: rickt @ 11/29/2008 10:52:51 PM

    Wanted: A New Grand Strategy? You asked for it and here it is! The biggest worry should be Pakistani terrorists attacking American cities, especially a nuclear strike. Just look at the history of countless attacks by Pakistani terrorists in India. Needless to say the WTC was also attacked twice by Pakistani terrorists. Give them a second chance and they successfully blew up the WTC twin towers. So calling a vicious state like Pakistan an ???ally??? on the war against terror is ridiculous! Pakistan should be financially choked out and forced to merge with a secular India. In the event that this does not work out, the only permanent solution to ending terrorism is to build an international coalition (minus China) to de-nuclearize Pakistan and divide Pakistan into 5 smaller states. Also keep in mind that China is untrustworthy and the West should not cozy up too much to China which is the only country with a history of siding with Pakistan for obvious reasons. China also has a record of proliferating Australian yellowcake to North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Syria. Do I need to remind about the infamous Dr. Khan of Pakistan who assisted with China's proliferation to rogue states? Dump China, and divide Pakistan - it will work~!

  • Posted By: Californio 1 @ 11/25/2008 2:09:30 AM

    While I agree that we need to reign in spending of most types I do think that some government spending may be helpful over the long term, but only where it involves long term improvements to infrastructure that increase economic compeditiveness. Repairs to roads, rails, bridges, ports (air, space, and sea) would all fall under this guideline as would pipelines, reservoirs, and energy supplies. Also military improvements and research have been demonstrated to be very useful for improving both the economy and our standard of living over the long term. Therefore, we should emphasize these things when producing spending bills and cut the rest. (better to employ people to build a better tommorrow than pay them to sit at home looking for a job.)

  • Posted By: chris s. @ 11/21/2008 10:14:09 PM

    Aren't you tired of the Bush administration treating you as if YOU are the dumb one? Didn't being talked down to get tiresome? Finally a pre4sident who acts like we are adults WITH BRAINS! How refreshing.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now
 
PHOTOS
What About Us?
Wall Street's problems have captured the attention of Congress, the White House and the media. But on the country's Main Streets ordinary folks are wondering if anyone is paying attention to them. A look at how Americans are coping with the economic crisis.