Too simplistic, expatincebu. Way too simplistic. The fact is that first economy you are talking about would cause a lot of problems, with countries that because of geographic location, etc. do not have access to those 'gold and silver' deposits. That is the main reason why we moved away from those things: because we realized that relying on standards that give preference to some countries.... is just ASKING for another world war, and a nuclear world war.
Now, the printing of money should be taken away from the private central reserve bank and be controlled ONLY by the government or an elected body like Congress. That I actually agree with... but I don't see it happening anywhere in the near or not-so-near future.
Markets Can’t Rule Themselves
A 'made in the U.S.A.' financial crisis highlights the need for more global—and more robust—oversight.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
For years, there has been an ongoing discussion among world leaders and thinkers about deficiencies in the international financial architecture and about economic imbalances, including the widening U.S. trade deficit. Many worried about a disorderly unwinding of these imbalances. Nothing was done.
We are now paying the price for our failure to act. Ten years ago, the fear was that financial turmoil in the developing world might spill over to the advanced industrialized countries. Today, we are in the middle of a "made in the U.S.A." crisis that is threatening the entire world.
If we are going to address this worldwide crisis and prevent a recurrence, we must reform and reconfigure the global financial system. There are simply too many interdependencies to allow each country to go its own way. For example, the United States benefited from its export of toxic mortgages; had it not sent some of them to Europe via complex securitization, its downturn would have been far worse. But the resulting weaknesses in Europe's banks are now ricocheting back to the United States.
Better regulation would have helped prevent such a situation. But the reform of the global financial system must go much further. For example, there must be better monetary-policy coordination around the world. Europe's current slowdown is due in part to the fact that while the European Central Bank spent the past year focusing on inflation, the United States was (rightly) focusing on the impending recession. The resulting difference in interest rates led to a strong euro and weak exports. That hurt Europe. But a weak Europe eventually hurts the United States, as Europe is forced to reduce its imports of American goods. With better coordination, perhaps America would have been able to convince Europe of the risks of recession, and that would have led to moderation of Europe's interest rates.
There is also a need for internationally coordinated stimulus programs to help jump-start growth. It is good news that China, the United States and Japan have now all instigated major programs of fiscal expansion. But they are of vastly different sizes, and so far, Europe's is lagging behind. Its growth and stability pact imposes constraints that may have global consequences.
Beyond this, confidence in financial markets will not be fully restored unless governments take a stronger role in regulating financial institutions, financial products and movements of capital. Banks have shown that they can't manage their own risk, and the consequences for others have been disastrous. Even former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, the high priest of deregulation, admits he went too far.
What we need now is a global financial regulatory body to help monitor and gauge systemic risk. If financial rules are allowed to vary too widely from nation to nation, there is a risk of a race to the bottom—some nations will move toward more lax regulation to capture financial business at the expense of their competitors. The financial system will be weakened, with consequences that are now all too apparent.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »









Discuss