Preventing a Financial Crisis: Why China Won’t Open Its Economy (w/ Chris Balding)

20:28
So how justified is the pessimistic China story of doom and gloom?
I agree with their analysis.
And I disagree pretty strongly with the conclusions they draw.
And here’s what I mean by that, everything that the China pessimists talk about with
regards to overcapacity, excess debt, all of that is true.
And, in fact, it’s probably, in reality, worse than even what they say.
They’re entirely right about what that typically leads to.
Here’s where I differ significantly, I see a potential financial crisis as the last outcome in the China story.
And there’s a very simple reason for that.
And it has nothing to do with finance or economics.
And it’s this, if there is a China crisis, of what you and I would mutually agree upon
is a true financial crisis, 2008, you know something like that, that is what would become
the once a century event.
That would be D-day, that would be the communists rolling into Moscow, that would be 1989, all
rolled into one event.
Beijing knows this, OK?
Beijing will do everything possible to prevent a financial crisis from taking place.
Now, I need to be perfectly clear, that doesn’t mean that they’re going to make good policy
decisions.
It most definitely does not mean that they’re going to make good policy decisions.
But it does mean that their objective is to prevent a financial crisis, at all costs.
When the US government was looking at some of the decisions it made in 2008, it made
a very clear, conscious decision, we are not going to rescue some of these firms, we are
not going to rescue specific asset holders in the decisions they’ve made.
Now we can debate whether or not that was the right decision, but there was a very clear
decision, we’re not going to do this, we’re not going to allow specific pain or events
to unfold.
Beijing does not have that option.
Someone I trust quite seriously on these issues said, it is Beijing’s objective to become
Tokyo, not Thailand.
And what they mean by that is, they are very willing to turn it into a long, grinding mess,
but they are absolutely, under no uncertain circumstances, willing to let it become a
financial crisis.
Because if it is a financial crisis, that changes everything we know about China, overnight.
That is the once a century event, and Beijing is going to do everything they can to prevent
that from happening.

U.S.-China ‘cold war’ threatens global recession and financial crisis by 2020, says Roubini

Dr. Doom lives up to his moniker

.. Roubini pointed to the ongoing U.S.-China trade conflict as the likeliest trigger of the next crisis. “There is a cold war between the U.S. and China,” he said. “We have a global rivalry . . . about who is going to be controlling the industries of the future: artificial intelligence, automation, and 5G.”

Because the standoff has evolved into a one about national security and geopolitics, Roubini predicted that “there will be a trade and tech war between the U.S. and China that’s going to get worse.”

Roubini dismissed the trade truce declared by U.S. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinpeng over the weekend as mere talk, though stock market investors appeared to think otherwise this week. The S&P 500 index SPX, -0.05%  closed at a record high Monday, while the Dow Jones Industrial AverageDJIA, -0.09%   and Nasdaq Composite index COMP, -0.11%   also gained to be within 1% of their record closes.

The uncertainty that the standoff has created is forcing businesses to delay or cancel plans to make additional investments, Roubini added. “There’s already been, in the data, a collapse in [capital expenditures] and once capex is down, industrial production is down, and then you have the beginning of a global recession that starts in

  • tech, then spreads to
  • manufacturing, then to
  • industry and then it goes to
  • services,” he said.

The Sino-American trade dispute will have even further consequences than just triggering the next recession, as it will cause “a complete decoupling of the global economy” as private entities and countries will have to choose whether to do business with China or the U.S., and it will lead to a reconstruction of “the entire global tech supply chain,” which will be a drag on economic growth going forward.

He compared the predicted U.S.-China “cold war” with that between the Soviet Union and the U.S. during the last century, arguing that the coming war will be more disruptive. “This divorce is going to get ugly compared to the divorce with the U.S. and the Soviet Union,” because there was little economic integration between America and Russia prior to the conflict.

Facebook’s Libra Must Be Stopped

After years of disregarding privacy, exploiting user data, and failing to control its platform, Facebook has now unveiled a cryptocurrency and payment system that could take down the entire global economy. Governments must intervene before a company that “moves fast and breaks things” ends up breaking everything.

NEW YORK – Facebook has just unveiled its latest bid for world domination: Libra, a cryptocurrency designed to function as private money anywhere on the planet. In preparing the venture, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been in negotiations with central banks, regulators, and 27 partner companies, each of which will contribute at least $10 million. For fear of raising safety concerns, Facebook has avoided working directly with any commercial banks.
Zuckerberg seems to understand that technological innovation alone will not ensure Libra’s success. He also needs a commitment from governments to enforce the web of contractual relations underpinning the currency, and to endorse the use of their own currencies as collateral. Should Libra ever face a run, central banks would be obliged to provide liquidity.

The question is whether governments understand the risks to financial stability that such a system would entail. The idea of a private, frictionless payment system with 2.6 billion active users may sound attractive. But as every banker and monetary policymaker knows, payment systems require a level of liquidity backstopping that no private entity can provide.

Unlike states, private parties must operate within their means, and cannot unilaterally impose financial obligations on others as needed. That means they cannot rescue themselves; they must be bailed out by states, or be permitted to fail. Moreover, even when it comes to states, currency pegs offer only an illusion of safety. Plenty of countries have had to break such pegs, always while insisting that “this time is different.”

What sets Facebook apart from other issuers of “private money” is its size, global reach, and willingness to “move fast and break things.” It is easy to imagine a scenario in which rescuing Libra could require more liquidity than any one state could provide. Recall Ireland after the 2008 financial crisis. When the government announced that it would assume the private banking sector’s liabilities, the country plunged into a sovereign debt crisis. Next to a behemoth like Facebook, many nation-states could end up looking a lot like Ireland.

Facebook is barreling ahead as if Libra was just another private enterprise. But like many other financial intermediaries before it, the company is promising something that it cannot possibly deliver on its own: the protection of the currency’s value. Libra, we are told, will be pegged to a basket of currencies (fiat money issued by governments), and convertible on demand and at any cost. But this guarantee rests on an illusion, because neither Facebook nor any other private party involved will have access to unlimited stores of the pegged currencies.

To understand what happens when regulators sit on their hands while financial innovators create put options, consider the debacle with money market funds in September 2008. Investors in MMFs were promised that they could treat their holdings like a bank account, meaning they could withdraw as much money as they put in whenever they wanted. But when Lehman Brothers collapsed, MMF investors all tried to cash out at the same time, whereupon it became clear that many funds could not deliver. To forestall a widespread run on all MMFs and the banks that backed them, the US Federal Reserve stepped in to offer liquidity support. A run on Libra would require support on a much larger scale, as well as close coordination among all central banks affected by it.

Given these massive risks, governments must step in and stop Libra before it launches next year. Otherwise, as Maxine Waters, the Chairwoman of the US House Committee on Financial Services, has warned, governments may as well start drafting their own living wills. In the parlance of finance and banking, a “living will” is a written plan that banks provide to regulators describing how they will unwind themselves in the event of insolvency. In the case of a government, a living will would have to explain how the relevant authorities would respond to Libra breaking its peg and triggering a global run.

Obviously, this raises a number of pertinent questions. Would governments vow, like former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke in September 2008, followed by European Central Bank President Mario Draghi in July 2012, to do “whatever it takes” to ensure the currency’s survival? Would they even have the capacity to do so, let alone coordinate their actions – and share losses – with all the other countries involved? Would governments be able to seize control of the system if it proves incapable of sustaining itself?

Silence in response to Facebook’s announcement this week is tantamount to endorsing its dangerous new venture. Governments must not allow private, profit-seeking parties to put the entire global financial system at risk. If banks are “too big to fail,” then states definitely are. If governments fail to protect us from Facebook’s latest act of hubris, we will all pay the price for it.