Abroad, Bailout Is Seen as a Detour From Capitalism

[tricky]

September 18, 2008
Abroad, Bailout Is Seen as a Detour From Capitalism

By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
PARIS — Is the United States no longer the global beacon of unfettered, free-market capitalism?
In extending a last-minute $85 billion lifeline to A.I.G., the troubled insurer, Washington has not only turned away from decades of rhetoric about the virtues of the free market and the dangers of government intervention, it has also likely undercut future American efforts to promote such policies abroad.
“I fear the government has passed the point of no return,” said Ron Chernow, a leading American financial historian. “We have the irony of a free-market administration doing things that the most liberal Democratic administration would never have been doing in its wildest dreams.”
While they acknowledge the shock of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the bailout package for A.I.G. on top of earlier government support for Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac has stunned even European policy makers accustomed to government intervention in the economy.
“For opponents of free markets in Europe and elsewhere, this is a wonderful opportunity to invoke the American example,” said Mario Monti, the former antitrust chief at the European Commission. “They will say that even the standard-bearer of the market economy, the United States negates its fundamental principles in its behavior.”
Mr. Monti noted that past financial crises in Asia, Russia, and Mexico brought government to the fore, “but this is the first time it’s in the heart of capitalism, which is enormously more damaging in terms of the credibility of the market economy.”
In France, where the government has long supported the creation of national champions and worked actively to protect select companies from the threat of foreign takeover, politicians were quick to point out the paradox of what is essentially the nationalization of the largest American insurance company.
“Today the actions of American policy makers illustrate the need for economic patriotism,” said Bernard Carayon, a lawmaker of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s center-right governing party, UMP. “I congratulate them.”
For the “evangelists of the market this is a painful lesson,” he added.
We’re entering “an era where we have much more regulation and where the public and the private sector will mix much more.”
In Asia, the Washington-led bailouts have stirred bitter memories of the very different approach the United States government and the International Monetary Fund pushed during the economic crises there a decade ago.
When the I.M.F. pledged $20 billion to help South Korea survive the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, one of the conditions it imposed was that the Korean government allow ailing banks and other companies to collapse rather than bail them out, recalls Yung Chul Park, a professor of economics at Korea University in Seoul who was deeply involved in the negotiations with the I.M.F.
While Mr. Park says the current crisis is different — it’s global rather than restricted to one region like Asia — “Washington is following a different script this time.”
“I understand why they do it,” he added. “But they’ve lost credibility to some extent in pushing for opening up overseas markets to foreign competition and liberalizing economies.”
The ramifications of the rescue of A.I.G. will be felt for years within the United States, too, not just abroad.
That’s because it was a very different kind of company than Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which enjoyed government sponsorship as mortgage finance providers, or Bear Stearns, which was regulated by the federal government.
“This was an insurance company that wasn’t federally regulated,” said Gary Gensler, who served as a top official in the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration. Nor did A.I.G. have access to Federal Reserve funds or deposit insurance, like a commercial bank.
“We’re in new territory,” Mr. Gensler added. “This is a paradigm shift.”
A.I.G. is also in a different league both by virtue of the breadth of its businesses and its extensive overseas operations, especially in Asia.
What’s more, it fell into something of a regulatory gap under the current rules.
While the company, based in New York, is better known for selling conventional products like insurance policies and annuities overseen by state regulators in the United States, it is also deeply involved in the risky, opaque market for derivatives and other complicated financial instruments, which operates largely outside any regulation.
Along with the threat to the plain-vanilla insurance policies held by millions of ordinary consumers, it was the looming threat posed by these arcane financial instruments that prompted Washington to act and bailout A.I.G.
Mr. Chernow, who has written extensively about the efforts of J. P. Morgan to steady the economy in 1907 before the creation of the Federal Reserve, echoed Mr. Gensler’s conclusion.
“It’s pure crisis management,” Mr. Chernow said. “It’s the Treasury and the Federal Reserve lurching from crisis to crisis without a clear statement on how financial failures will be handled in the future. They’re afraid to articulate such a policy. The safety net they are spreading seems to widen every day with no end in sight.”

interesting....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/bu.../18rescue.html

[Guido]

Ha. These huge companies that pay their execs these retarded bonus fees even as the company is failing do NOT deserve to be bailed out. These companies failed because of poor business decisions. Not some economic force. Why should we, as the taxpayers, bail them out?

[Sinner]

If the French don't understand why, then our govtmnt shouldn't have done it.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Guido

Ha. These huge companies that pay their execs these retarded bonus fees even as the company is failing do NOT deserve to be bailed out. These companies failed because of poor business decisions. Not some economic force. Why should we, as the taxpayers, bail them out?

Because the company is essentially stable but for one area that trainwrecked (claims on defaulting bonds that AIG insured)

The issue isn't ability to pay its the ability to pay immediately

This isn't a "bail out" its a bridge loan to be repaid

Failing to help bridge the gap would result in the collapse of AIG

The Collapse of AIG would have a colassal impact on sectors of the economy hitherto untouched and unrelated to the sector currently troubling AIG

[tricky]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Because the company is essentially stable but for one area that trainwrecked (claims on defaulting bonds that AIG insured)

The issue isn't ability to pay its the ability to pay immediately

This isn't a "bail out" its a bridge loan to be repaid

Failing to help bridge the gap would result in the collapse of AIG

The Collapse of AIG would have a colassal impact on sectors of the economy hitherto untouched and unrelated to the sector currently troubling AIG

Did you read the article?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

Did you read the article?

Yes, and it doesn't touch on the "why" issue which Guido asked about.

[tricky]

"the 'bridge loan' to nowhere"

heh

[Guido]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Because the company is essentially stable but for one area that trainwrecked (claims on defaulting bonds that AIG insured)

The issue isn't ability to pay its the ability to pay immediately

This isn't a "bail out" its a bridge loan to be repaid

Failing to help bridge the gap would result in the collapse of AIG

The Collapse of AIG would have a colassal impact on sectors of the economy hitherto untouched and unrelated to the sector currently troubling AIG

Ah. Every time the government throws one of these loans, it seems more like a bailout. I wasn't sure that this was in fact a real loan to be repaid to the Fed.
I can imagine the impact that this would have if left to fall apart. Fun times.