Skip to main content

Still Fear Those Sovereign-Wealth Funds?


In January 2008, I remember people in the U.S. freaking out about Merrill Lynch and Citigroup being buoyed by sovereign wealth funds from Asia and the Middle East. Obviously, people had predictably turned paranoid and protectionist at a time when it was assumed that there were options that would not jeopardize American national interests. Of course, these events give the already anxious and fearful population more of a reason to think America is declining. I personally found it ironic that these sovereign wealth funds are allowed to finance the U.S. federal deficit, but people get outraged when these same funds invest in iconic American institutions like Merrrill Lynch. Anyway, the public is fairly ignorant about these issues, so the reaction is not all that surprising.

What I wanted to raise in this post is how the American public would react if sovereign wealth funds jumped in to rescue the American financial system instead of the U.S. government reluctantly passing a $700+ billion rescue bill. Would people still be outraged or would they be relieved someone else has come to the rescue?

The reality of it is that sovereign wealth funds are worth trillions of dollars and they would have invested in the sick financial institutions of Wall Street if they deemed the risk was worth taking. Unfortunately, the wall street giants were too sick and it would have been bad investment for sovereign wealth funds to pump money into these companies. That's exactly why they didn't come to the rescue. Only the U.S. [and European] governments felt obligated to rescue the Wall Street giants at enormous cost to tax payers.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Correlation Between Taxes and Social/Economic Programs

I have always wondered if the taxes people pay correlate with the availability of social and economic programs and safety nets, not to mention the military programs that protect them. This idea comes in light of the notion that Europeans are highly taxed compared to their American counterparts, but they seem to have access to free (or almost free) education and health care while the US provides neither. The Europeans live and work at a more leisurely pace than Americans and they have the comfort of knowing that their government has put safety nets in case a disaster. The Europeans do a lot to ensure that all their citizens have comparable opportunities, and thus you are less likely to see a huge gap between the poor and the rich. Perhaps the lack of incentive to excel has stifled entrepreneurship and innovation in Europe to some extent. In fact, Europe has historically high unemployment rates than the US and the size of government there is significantly larger than that of the US....

Obama, McCain and Campaign Financing

Obama and McCain had at one point both agreed to take public financing in September 2007 if they were their respective party's nominee. At the time, they were both long shots to get their party's nomination, but oddly enough they have both made it to the general election. As for their promise to take public financing, McCain decided to keep his promise while Obama opted to finance his campaign through his own fundraising. In doing so, he became the first ever presidential candidate to forego public financing during the general election. In February 2008, McCain started criticizing Obama for not keeping his promise to take public financing. How legitimate are McCain's accusations? That's what I wanted to discuss. According to The New York Times campaign finance page , Obama and McCain raised $401m and ~$150m, respectively, prior to earning their party's nomination. The public financing package is $84m over two months (Sept-Nov). For McCain, whose averaged $7....

2001 Recession Deferred for 2008?

Most people remember the Dot-Com bubble of the 1990s that peaked in 2000 before bursting in 2001-2003. Considering how the NASDAQ composite lost more than 60% of its value by 2001 alone, the country was about to go into a recession. The 9/11 attacks made things worse too. As the impact of 9/11 and Dot-Com bust were about to pull the country into a recession, another bubble came to the rescue. It was the housing bubble that deferred a sure recession and kept the US in an era of faux prosperity. It gave Bush a reason to soldier on with flawed economic policies as the housing bubble gave the impression that the good economic progress of the Clinton years were being sustained through Bush's years. This time though, there does not appear to be another bubble ready to bail the US out of the recession it is in. After suffering through the I.T. and housing bubbles in just a decade, I don't think investors and people in general will be adventurous enough to create another bubbl...