,
14 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
Was interesting to discuss what we've learned from the global finance crisis 10 years on at this event organized by @YorkPolSoc and @YorkEconsoc last week. Altho what emerged from all the speakers' presentations was how little we've learned & how vulnerable the economy still is. 
Prof. Peter Spencer (@EconomicsatYork) was first up. He gave us a tour through the regulatory reforms that have taken place since 2008, which he largely considers to be a papering over of cracks. He argued that we may be closer now to the cliff-edge than before.
Prof. Peter Smith (@EconomicsatYork) gave a tour through changes in productivity since the crisis, with a focus on the UK. He identified both a decline in investment & productivity growth, and an increase in macroeconomic uncertainty since 2009 despite improvements in regulation.
I chose to take an international perspective by focusing on three issues: 1) the global governance reform that wasn't 2) change in ideas & policies in IMF/@WorldBank 3) how the developing world was affected by the crisis. Finally, I identified some lessons & new vulnerabilities.
There's much research on the battles over global financial governance (I summarize some here ). But as @adam_tooze points out, the idea that the crisis was American & therefore should have contributed to the demise of American power is a bit misleading.
Altho the crisis originated in the US, it also illustrated that US was the only state capable of meeting the challenge it posed, due to the hegemony of the dollar (& US role as liquidity provider of last resort). The crisis was a reminder of how dependent the world is on the US.
On changes in ideas & policy, there is much to be said. One issue is how the transformation from "finance is good for growth" to "there can be too much finance" (inverted-U) doesn't deal with the fundamental methodological and theoretical problems w/ IFIs approach to finance.
Another issue is the turn towards market-based finance and the encouragement of financial deepening (which as @DanielaGabor and others have said, is effectively pushing shadow banking on developing countries).
Relationships btwn financial deepening, financialization & real economy are complex & changing. There have been important conceptual developments like subordinate financialization (@Powell_J_R), currency hierarchies (@anninak82) etc, but these ideas haven't made it to IFIs (yet)!
Finally, most developing economies weren't affected directly because of their lack of integration into the global financial system (but indirect effects through drop in global trade were significant). Crises came later in 2014 when commodity prices dropped and tapering started.
Now that developing economies are more financially integrated, a new financial crash would likely have a much wider direct effect, especially given that there hasn't been any fundamental reform of the international monetary system (The Status Quo Crisis, as Helleiner puts it).
Next up we had @HannaSzymborska (@Economics_OU) who asked: Recovery for whom? She unpacked unemployment across gender, age & ethnic lines to show increases in inequality. This outcome results from political choice by UK gov (whose austerity policy is in breach of 4 human rights).
Finally, @AndrewCPick (@EconomicsatYork) pointed out that monetary policy might be considered a partial success, while fiscal policy has been a failure even by IMF standards. The result has been a lot more polarized world (but more engaged students!).
Thanks @YorkPolSoc & @YorkEconsoc for organizing a very timely discussion. Looking forward to the next one tomorrow: @ProfSteveKeen discussing whether we can avoid another financial crisis! facebook.com/events/2356695…
