His economic plan is too conventional
Obama and the world economy
By Will Hutton Published 15 January 2009For a generation, we have been living with the fiction that the world does not need governing. An orthodoxy has prevailed that states and nations should become creatures of globalisation - in other words, "market states". The job of the US, as the world's hegemonic power, has therefore been to promote ungoverned globalisation by promoting free finance and open markets with minimal rules - along with a global network of military bases to prevent any armed challenges to this notion.
It falls to Barack Obama to change this orthodoxy, and to introduce new systems of global regulation and governance. He has to combine Rooseveltian reformism at home with the international activism of Harry Truman. Whether the issue is climate change, the international financial system or the clash between Islamic fundamentalism and the rest, Obama cannot fall back on the doctrine that some combination of markets and brute force will fix matters. They haven't, and they won't. The US needs to construct nothing less than a new multilateralist international order.
The challenge is immense. Some of the problems would still be close to intractable even if there were more of a consensus on the approach - which there is not. For example, it is obvious that the entire fabric of the financial system - from floating exchange rates through to tax havens and the bloated $360trn derivatives markets - needs to be brought back onshore and managed so that its capacity for economic destabilisation can be constrained.
But are the great powers ready to accept the disciplines of managing a stabler international currency regime, by setting monetary and fiscal policy at home in such a way that the international system can function better? How would such a system work? Who, after a generation in which the only thinking permitted has been that which promotes markets, has even a semi-workable scheme to propose on currencies and banks?
So it is in issue after issue. By 2010 a quarter of global carbon dioxide emissions will come from China. The Chinese resist any deal that constrains this growth, insisting that the west must shoulder the burden of climate change adjustment and pay for the entire cost of improving China's energy efficiency. But an asymmetric deal of this type is not sellable in the US. In the Middle East, success requires Obama to take on the Israeli lobby at home to put pressure on Israel and build a coalition of pragmatic Islamic states abroad. Not impossible, but it has eluded every other US president.
All this has to be delivered while retaining what is good about globalisation - free trade. Economic growth, prosperity and employment generation have gone hand in hand with trade since the beginning of time. Globalisation has offered countries as disparate as Vietnam, Singapore, India and Brazil a way of bootstrapping themselves out of poverty. We need stronger rules about the organisation of trade - especially on labour standards and the environment - but the principle that borders should remain open to the movement of goods and services is a cornerstone of prosperity. Obama has a powerfully protectionist Democrat party to handle; the temptation to give in will be overwhelming.
Obama knows all this - but he is allowing himself to be too constrained by unnecessary genuflections to the mainstream thinking that has so let the US down. His economic recovery plan is too conventional. The US needs a huge fiscal boost; but it also needs the financial system reformed at home and abroad, about which Obama has said too little. So it is across the board. But he is his own man, and he thinks deeply. And if he can't do it, there are no other contenders. To coin a phrase, we must have the audacity of hope.
Will Hutton is executive vice-chair of the Work Foundation
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


72 comments
Today we have seen the Anglo Irish Bank become nationalised.
Barclays has lost near 25 % in the last hour of trading on the London stock market.
In the USA ;
""....in the case of Citigroup, the losses have become so large that they make it almost mathematically impossible for the government to inject enough capital without taking a majority stake or at least squeezing out existing shareholders."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/16/business/16banking.php
Similar problematic situations are arising in the German and Spanish banking sectors.
The other British Banks are also looking for more funds to help them ride the next wave in the downturn.
Where are these new funds going to come from?
In the case of Barclays they wont get much from their shareholders after they way the majority of them were let down over the last time an injection of capital was required and was given preference to new investors.
looks like it will be the good old, never let you down, reliable tax payer yet again. If this is to be the way forward then nothing but full nationalisation has to be the outcome.
However there is still very little being said about the amount of debt involved in the toxic debt.
Figures on the amount vary from $56 trillion to near 10 times that amount $576 trillion. Absolute mind blowing amounts of any thing let alone money.
Who is going to be the first to open Pandora's box and see whats inside?
Maybe its the UK government. Hints have been dropped that Darling is considering introducing a "Bad Bank" to buy up all the toxic debt in British Banks.
Someone better nip over to Heidleberg and pick up some machines before there all sold.
Desperation in the ranks. The problem is this, we are only at the beginning of this process. Here is comment from The Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/4295219/Gordon-...
As I stated when the bailouts/nationalisations were first mooted, they were a criminal waste of money (debt), the banks should have been allowed to go bust as and when. The government should have aquired the inferstructure of several bust High Street banks and used the "liquidity/bailout money to maintain a reasonable level of credit to business and public.
Of course, this would establish a new clean foundation on which to build NEW clean banks which would be FREE from rocket scientist devised financial products. This could have been setup in two months, so would now be up and running and we might not now be facing this current crisis of confidence.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/01/roubini-banking-system-is-...
As I have said before, this crisis was designed and so far, the elite bankers have got it all their own way. Brown and Darling got sucked into the scam, by believing they actually had some POWER.LOL
The FACT that all the worlds politicians followed the same daft policies, is an illustration of NWO power....the elite are becoming much more powerful, while the rest of us remain surfs.
Since the NWO sham war on terror started, we have lost a lot of our civil liberties, we are spied on constantly and now WE are being robbed blind....what will come from all this? In my opinion, we`ll end up with global financial regulation and de facto world government and as yet unseen social change.
Nilsey105,
What you write is interesting, thanks.
The entire financial system seem to be in state of flux. As we move from one era into another. An era of very tight credit and overall scarcity, at least compared to profligacy and rampant consumerism finnaced by debt. I see the economy shrinking back to where it should have been minus the stimulus of the credit bubble. If this happens it's going to have profound implications for the UK, as Britain's manufacturing base is so small, having been replaced by the shiny 'new economy.'
Another fundamental and 'structural' problem with the whole philosophy behind these massive stimulus packages is their collosal inflationary potential. OK one can argue that what we're seeing now is prices falling and deflation so we don't have to worry about inflation, what we're trying to do is stop everything grinding to a halt, once we get the economy moving again that'll be the time to worry about inflation. Only we could have the worst of both worlds. Inflation and deflation at the same time, what some people call stagflation.
The American economy is arguably in almost as bad a state as the UK's. They are going to have to borrow massively to finance these enormous stimulus packages, which at present, supposedly ammount to almost a 1000 billion dollars. Some people think another 1000 billion on top is necessary. That's an awful lot of borrowing, or they could just print the money!
But this level of borrowing is bound to have an impact on the value of the dollar and US treasury bonds. Will the rest of the world keep financing US debt at these unsustainable levels, especially when it appears that they will never really be able to pay back their debts, not without restructuring the US economy?
The dollars is going to come under enormous strain as the debt mountain expands like dough, yet another credit bubble growing and growing. With the dollar losing its value why would anyone lend to them?
Is the American economy just too big to fail? Is this what the Americans are relying on? This seems like gambling. Gambling that the rest of the world will be prepared to pay 'tribute' to the US forever, no matter how crazy their economic policies are! And it's not as if they seem to understand how precarious their position is. Wasting $150 million on Obama's party is an incredible insult to ordinary Americans, having a lavish party while Rome burns.
What happens when reality strikes the US? They cannot continue with these massive deficits for ever. Two trillion deficits are impossible to maintain. What other country has ever had such large deficits and survived unscathed? They are going to destroy the value of the dollar and probably far quicker than they imagine.
How, traditionally have countries dealt with these kinds of problems? Obviously the ruling elite can't allow people to point the finger at them, that would be very dangerous. War seems to be the 'answer.' War not only functions like monumental 'fire sale' clearing the shelves so one can 'restock', it is also a marvelous way of distracting and diverting the attention of ordinary people from the real causes of the crisis and those responisble for it.
I think Britain's on the route towards national insolvancy, the banks are going to drag us all down with them, especially if we keep pouring billions, moving close to trillions into a bottomless debthole. Soon borrowing will become impossible and then the government will simply begin to print money. Only this will undermine confidence in Sterling and the economy and only make things worse, a spiralling, vortex of collapsing confidence and vast losses. This is the terrible and ghastly climax of Thatcherism, the virtual destruction and ruin of the British economy.
writeon, I wish you hadn`t used "climax and Thatcherism" in the same sentence.....where the valium?? :(
OMG CJ
how could you have such thoughts at a time like this. LMAO.
Oh VALIUM your after and not the VIAGRA lol
How significant is the decision to allow Northern Rock to restart providing mortgages?
Is NR, now the prefered vehicle for a nationalised bank?
Are we going to see RBS and Lloyds and their offshoots go to the wall with their deposit accounts being moved to NR.
Superficially it looks a good proposition. It will save the taxpayer hundreds of billions. The toxic debts, held by those banks who fail, will be wiped out. Savers money will be safe in the nationalised NR.
Nilsey105, this is possible, but RBS (and others) pay the treasury a huge wack, but then again, "austerity and social change" are important cornerstones when large constructs like this financial crisis, are played out.
It is hard to workout which way things will swing, but the election of Obama indicates a move to the right. Blair was supposed to offer "hope" (LOL) after the Thatcher construct, but Blair was more rightwing than even Thatcher could ever dare, so Obama will likely make things much tougher for Amerikans.
Here in the UK, Brown and his NWO handlers have shown no "goodwill" towards the tax paying public. Only a minor delay with the super-carriers, Trident hasn`t been cut (US benefits) and pointless...utterly USELESS ID CARDS...all this with the MSM openly crying "bankruptcy".LOL
BTW, NR needs a sack of cash if its going to play a significant role...maybe there should be a Southern Rock?LOL
'Say something!' Why aren't the banks lending, but hoarding the money they've been given by the state? Simply beause they don't believe in a recovery any time soon. They believe we're only at the start of the crisis and the only way is down for the forseeable future. This is probbaly the 'truth' of the situation. The speed of the decline is increassing and we aren't even successfully stabilising the system. We're going down. It's the how deep and for how long that's the big question, and nobody knows, and the computer models weren't programmed to extrapolate data this bad, according to my very pretty, mole friend, inside Barclays, it's gratifying what flowers, little gifts and a few expensive lunches can accomplish these days. Soon we'll all be meeting down at the soup kitchen, but we'll have our memories.