Looking over Wall Street, originally uploaded by Goggla.

Politicsand money always come together, esp. in democracy. 這兩天美國最大的消息還是在討論正在進行的「本土金融風暴」。美國本質上是世界帝國,她的風暴自然是世界性的,坊間不少討論是由【國際政治經濟+陰謀論】的角度來討論美國這次的金融問題(不直接,不過有趣的對比),這個角度是很有道理的。或許不少人沒有真的去過 New York Stock Exchange(美國紐約證交所)、華爾街那一帶,多年前第一次去時,看見證交所的大門(下圖),真的嚇了一大跳,影響全世界這麼大的金融市場,只有這麼侷促的門面,而真正引起我注意的,反而是 NYSE 對面的國立紀念館(Federal Hall)。錢與權不只是美國的立國精神,也是這個國家政治的真實面貌,國立紀念館與 NYSE 充分的反映了這個真實,如今,Fed 要出來保衛美國資本主義了,"rescue private AIG(解救 AIG 大兵)"雖然引起 moral hazard 的批評,但是由國民經濟的角度來看,則完全合理。在這種特殊的歷史時刻裡,national economy 的本質還是超越單純的經濟考量,「國民利益」乃成了合理化 Fed 作為的 justification,不過何謂國民利益呢?連美國人都有不同的共識,摘錄幾篇文章,呈現不同的觀點。

釋疑:
1. 經濟學家的看法和我所受過的正統經濟學教育一樣,值得一讀:
《劉憶如看天下》美國金融風暴的救與不救
疑慮當然還是來自於對道德危機(MORAL HAZARD)的顧慮。就如同筆者上周〈救了二房並不等於救了經濟〉一文所言,十年前葛林斯班出面協調救助長期資本管理公司(LTCM)雖獲掌聲,但引發市場上擔心日後銀行因而膽敢承接更多風險。葛林史班當年的救助雖然不得不為,但也是影響其後美國各金融機構因為「有恃無恐」而失去了對風險應有的管控,甚至間接造成此次全球金融的大危機。
葛老時期讓subprime lending活了下來,現在的責任不知要誰來擔,甚至我也讀到一些 comment 將葛老貶為「虛構了一個美國榮景的假象」,這樣的 comment 我認為是不 fair 的。

2. 《劉憶如觀點》透視美國房貸風暴
這篇文章還是有不少 insight,有時在懷疑,怎麼不乾脆找劉憶如去當財長好了,應該比李述德稱職吧。

3. scarcasam:華爾街的解釋信
因此﹐美國大眾﹐我們的危機很不幸也是你們的危機。我們一起造就了危機﹐現在就得一起付出代價。

合併、政府接管和破產會繼續清掃我們的金融體系﹐這是個好跡象。這意味著我們正在自我調整﹐雖然這是被逼的。

我們自由市場的運轉方式奇怪么﹖美國政府出面拯救華爾街﹐而你們美國大眾來買單。

我的建議﹖留著這封信﹐等我們下次再遭遇愚蠢不幸的時候再拿出來看好了。
很有趣的一篇文章,我覺得對於入門者來說,這篇文章儘可能地提供了「比喻」的想像。

wall street, NYSE, originally uploaded by briantmurphy.



4. 金融政治:單純的由經濟面來理解金融風暴是不足的,每每金融風暴出現,國家總要出面來採取因應措施,由這個角度上,「政治歸政治,經濟歸經濟」顯得愚不可及。

James Moor: A Nation of Village Idiots
That's pretty easy to answer, too. His name is Phil Gramm. A few days after the Supreme Court made George W. Bush president in 2000, Gramm stuck something called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into the budget bill. Nobody knew that the Texas senator was slipping America a 262 page poison pill. The Gramm Guts America Act was designed to keep regulators from controlling new financial tools described as credit "swaps." These are instruments like sub-prime mortgages bundled up and sold as securities. Under the Gramm law, neither the SEC nor the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) were able to examine financial institutions like hedge funds or investment banks to guarantee they had the assets necessary to cover losses they were guaranteeing.

This isn't small beer we are talking about here. The market for these fancy financial instruments they don't expect us little people to understand is estimated at $60 trillion annually, which amounts to almost four times the entire US stock market.

And Senator Phil Gramm wanted it completely unregulated. So did Alan Greenspan, who supported the legislation and is now running around to the talk shows jabbering about the horror of it all. Before the highly paid lobbyists were done slinging their gold card guts about the halls of congress, every one from hedge funds to banks were playing with fire for fun and profit.
這是對於美國為何喪失 regulation capacity 的重要解釋,立法單位如何為資本家代言,造成國民資本主義系統性地 biased on capitalists 是馬克思以前就講過的事,Moore 這篇文章解釋了為何今天馬克思命題還是在上演。

Robert Creamer: Why the Financial Meltdown Reflects the Fundamental Failure of the Bush-McCain Economic Philosophy
The financial meltdown on Wall Street is more than a cyclic correction brought on by a mismanaged business cycle. It is emblematic of a problem at the very foundation of the right wing economic philosophy that became conventional wisdom during the Bush years -- and would be continued in a McCain presidency.
[中略]
For many years after the Great Depression, most mortgages were provided by banks and savings and loans. Traditionally these institutions would originate their own loans, evaluate the risk, and maintain a relationship with the borrower. It was in the self-interest of the institution to make loans -- that's how it made money. But it was also in the institution's interest to assure that the borrower could pay the loan back, because it was lending its own money.

Over the last thirty years, the mortgage market has fundamentally changed. Now most loans are originated by brokers or other mortgage companies who make their money through "origination fees" and often payments from big, unregulated lenders. Once these loans are made, they are then packaged and sold as securities through the secondary mortgage market.

Mortgage originators had every incentive to make all the loans they could, but absolutely no incentive to assure that the borrowers could pay the loans back. Credit standards were relaxed, new "sub prime" products were introduced, "no-document" loans were issued.

This system provided a great deal of liquidity to the mortgage industry. But it also removed the risk of making the loan from the loan originator and handed it to a huge, diffuse "market." No longer did any individual or institution have any individual incentive to prevent bad loans.
有論述制高點的說法,透過歷史論述來說明美國信貸業的「生命史」,詮釋了美國資本主義的歷史運動。

總的來說,美國的金融危機還是一齣仍在上演的劇碼,每日在台灣的「附帶劇」也不會停止,如果台灣自詡「朝美國之路邁進」,那多讀些美國本地的評論者以不同知識脈絡下所呈現的歷史深度,反思台灣目前的困局,或許可以幫助我們在茫茫大海中尋找明辨的方向。


0 comments:

Post a Comment



Blogger Template by Blogcrowds