As U.S. officials hunt for solutions to what many economists are calling the most serious financial crisis since the Depression, they might draw lessons from another painful and costly banking emergency.
In the early 1990s, a massive Swedish real estate bubble burst, littering the Nordic economy with broken finance companies, failing businesses and jobless workers. It was the first systemic banking crisis in an industrialized country since the 1930s and it saw the Swedish economy actually shrink for three straight years — something that hasn't happened in the United States since the rapid demobilization after World War II.
The Swedish and American crises share many traits: Both followed periods of financial deregulation, and both featured newly daring banks relying upon bookkeeping maneuvers to take on unsustainable amounts of debt. Happily, despite economic conditions that were far worse than in the USA today — and unlike a similar episode in Japan — Sweden quickly recovered.
Yet, it did so in a manner that would be highly controversial in the United States. Sweden used taxpayer money — and lots of it — to rebuild its wounded banks. "In Sweden's case, the solution ultimately ended up on the government's balance sheet. … The government ended up recapitalizing the system," says economist David Rosenberg of Merrill Lynch. "There's a lesson here."
Sweden's successful crisis management may offer a road map for U.S. officials. But the Swedish cleanup wasn't cheap. It cost the public an estimated 6% of annual economic output; an equivalent bill for the U.S. today would be nearly $850 billion. And Sweden was able to implement a free-spending government rescue only because of a broad political consensus that is difficult to imagine amid the hyper-partisan atmosphere of a U.S. presidential election year.
In the early 1990s, a massive Swedish real estate bubble burst, littering the Nordic economy with broken finance companies, failing businesses and jobless workers. It was the first systemic banking crisis in an industrialized country since the 1930s and it saw the Swedish economy actually shrink for three straight years — something that hasn't happened in the United States since the rapid demobilization after World War II.
The Swedish and American crises share many traits: Both followed periods of financial deregulation, and both featured newly daring banks relying upon bookkeeping maneuvers to take on unsustainable amounts of debt. Happily, despite economic conditions that were far worse than in the USA today — and unlike a similar episode in Japan — Sweden quickly recovered.
Yet, it did so in a manner that would be highly controversial in the United States. Sweden used taxpayer money — and lots of it — to rebuild its wounded banks. "In Sweden's case, the solution ultimately ended up on the government's balance sheet. … The government ended up recapitalizing the system," says economist David Rosenberg of Merrill Lynch. "There's a lesson here."
Sweden's successful crisis management may offer a road map for U.S. officials. But the Swedish cleanup wasn't cheap. It cost the public an estimated 6% of annual economic output; an equivalent bill for the U.S. today would be nearly $850 billion. And Sweden was able to implement a free-spending government rescue only because of a broad political consensus that is difficult to imagine amid the hyper-partisan atmosphere of a U.S. presidential election year.
Sources: usatoday
No comments:
Post a Comment