I think what is meant is that if one country has a crisis, the contagion is not so great if there is less trade between them.

If on the other hand one country is doing well, then the favorable contagion will not be so great either. It should not be all about risk, but opertunity also.

The most comon comentary about the US Chinese battle for economic supremacy, is that it is hurting.(and helps wreck globalization)

Actually, somewhat poorer makes you more competative, recesions have there logic. A period where changes are made to improve, so no worry about slowdown.

So each thing with a bit of criteria, dont people think?

According to the recent theories of financial risk management,the concept of systemic risk is becoming pervasive and all-embracing. This has led at new theories of asset diversification aimed at reducing the global risks exposition, diversifying the ratio of risks rather than the single assets. The concept behind is that all assets are always (in different way) correlated, and the simple portfolio theory and diversification concept is no more widespread to reduce systemic risk. These theories are called the "risk parity approach" and are based on the globalization concern you raised.

Dear sir,

for detailed information on this query you may refer the content titled " The Butterfly Defect: How Globalization Creates Systemic Risks, and What to Do about It"

link is : Article The Butterfly Defect: How Globalization Creates Systemic Ris...

Hope, it will help.

The answer is YES. This is so because financial markets have become more interdependent through the globalization process. There are many new research papers on the relationship between "systemic risk and globalization". Just type these key words in your google search.

In my opinion, the answer is definitely yes.

The last crisis from 2007/08 is the best confirmation that globalization proces can increase systematic risk of global economy and financial crisis.

Yes,the current globalisation is quite volatile and it increases the systematic risk.

There is no doubt that modern globalization, accompanied by intensive processes of regionalization and trans-regionalization, is able to initiate systemic risks of the global economy and global financial system. I am convinced that, unfortunately, geopolitical and geo-financial risks make a huge contribution to the development of global crisis of a new quality. The global economy is on the threshold of serious transformations that will affect financial markets, business and public finance.

It is just one more variable that nations must watch, and may complicate things.

On the other hand openness can help you trade more easily, a larger market.

I am of the opinion that such integration would definitely add to the systematic risk. Systematic risk means volatility risk which means up and down swing of the overall economic activities. It is the economic behavior of the general economy concurrently may be due to trade, political decision, etc. I would like to make a mention of Brexit (withdrawal of Britain from European Union) has definitely affected the European countries and such withdrawal has caused disturbance in the trade between European Union and Britain and also between Britain and other countries including India.

If the stock markets are still considered a barometer of the state of the economy, then the forecasts of the stock market on the stock markets for 2019 are not the best. Currently, from many macroeconomic analyzes, it follows that after several previous years of improving economic growth in the current year 2019, economic growth will slow down in many countries. Do you agree with these reports? Have you met in your country with specific signs confirming the above thesis that in 2019 the economic growth will most likely slow down? If so, what are the symptoms of the projected slowdown in economic growth, which would suggest that in 2019 the economic slowdown will most likely slow down?

Please reply

Best wishes

I think what is meant is that if one country has a crisis, the contagion is not so great if there is less trade between them.

If on the other hand one country is doing well, then the favorable contagion will not be so great either. It should not be all about risk, but opertunity also.

The most comon comentary about the US Chinese battle for economic supremacy, is that it is hurting.(and helps wreck globalization)

Actually, somewhat poorer makes you more competative, recesions have there logic. A period where changes are made to improve, so no worry about slowdown.

So each thing with a bit of criteria, dont people think?

Yes with emphasis on the "current" par of the processes. the current processes are counter to what the solution required is. That is, the efforts to control from on high of the processes is counter productive because they are not coherent with the way things work in our universe. They are the "hell of good intentions" as Stephen Walt suggests. Better to use a problem solving technique of let rule of nature to (survival of the fittest) to find the productive organization.

Dariuz

Right now in argentina, as you probably know, hellish predictions for the future, as the tax structure is smothering,

the state overdimensioned, this year just politics with no hard decision in sight.

Only just recently has the dolar stabalized and things calmed down just a bit. Off course cannot pay off debt, but neither can most other nations, only keep some sort of balance. Looks like we would continue to contribute to a slowdown.

Regards, Juan

I submit the current globalization processes are the cause of the risk of a major crisis. The current processes are dominated by increased intervention (for "humanitarian" purposes - or so they say). These processes are the exact opposite to the Westphalia Sovereignty. As such they cause revolts because the target of the increasing regulations are often disadvantaged and reject the use of the imposed force. Therefore, it looks like Argentina on a global scale. Increasing treasure and blood is being spent to force regulations.

Trade is best when one party gives what it considers excess while getting what it considers rare - a love relationship. When this is perverted, collapse and war follows. Regulation from on-high often are inconsistent with how the locals would spend resources.

Perhaps, the Westphalia Sovereignty should be reinstated.

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

In my opinion, globalization is leading to the Integration of Business Cycles. In this way, globalization may deepen economic crises, including the global financial and debt crisis. An example was the global financial crisis, which appeared in mid-September 2008. At that time bankruptcy was announced by one of the largest investment banks in the world. As a result of unreliable credit risk management procedures, billions of USD of financial losses have been generated. It turned out that the unwritten rule no longer works, that "big can not fall". However, it is the emergence of ever larger international corporations and financial institutions that is one of the main determinants of the processes of economic globalization that have been progressing in recent years. these processes continue. Every few years, as a result of the merger of some of the largest financial institutions through mergers and acquisitions, more and more banks are formed. On the other hand, international operating industrial corporations move their factories from country to country, looking for cheaper workforce, and international trading and service corporations set up subsidiaries and sales outlets in other countries. Capital links grow transnational and thus systemic risk grows, whose sources can be related to the progressing economic globalization.

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Best wishes

Dariusz Prokopowicz

No. There are 2 (at least cycles). The one to which you allude is a business cycle however well coordinated is not the really big threat. Historically, such down-turns are short lived (3 years or so).

The next human caused cycle is much more insidious. In an effort to lessen the natural business cycle or to appear competent, politicians institute stimulus programs and regulations which have the effect of major down-turns that last a long time. Note the 2008 lasted 8 years until Trump removed regulations.

A 3rd is natural events and cycles such as drought, Note it is the cold cycles that are the real killer. Warm cycles bring increased food production.

In view of the above, it is also important to include in the above discussion also the following issue:

Was the picture of the sources of the global financial crisis presented in the media fully objective?

In the situation when a global financial crisis appeared in the autumn of 2008, a long-time public discussion on the sources of this crisis, explaining its development and pointing to the need to improve credit risk management procedures began in the media.

In the course of numerous analyzes carried out after 2008, many irregularities in the functioning of investment banking operating on capital markets in 2006-2008, investing in high-risk securities and their derivatives, were diagnosed. In addition, the institutions of supervision over financial systems did not notice many irregularities in the process of granting mortgage loans and in the rating agencies issuing too high, overly optimistic assessments for investment banks located in the forfeiture, sold for not fully informed about a high level of credit risk for investors, which were offered securities, credit derivatives, subprime bonds. Financial system supervisors also did not notice high systemic risk in a situation where a significant part of all mortgage loans in developed countries with the Anglo-Saxon model of the financial system were insured by a few insurance companies. Financial institutions also did not notice unethical practices of selling investment banks to investors of securities, whose valuation on securities markets was significantly overvalued and in the situation when the global financial crisis occurred, these securities were almost nothing or nothing worth buying.

The global financial crisis in 2008 was the reason for increasing the scale of interventionist economic policies in developed countries. The main instrument of this policy was the significant development of a mild monetary policy and interventionist measures aimed at forcing the restructuring processes of heavily indebted enterprises and stop-ping the decline in lending by commercial banks. As part of the pro-development activities of the state intervention, the Federal Reserve Bank applied a mild monetary policy of low interest rates and a program for activating lending and maintaining liquidity in the financial system by financing the purchase from commercial banks of the most en-dangered assets. A few years later, the European Central Bank applied the same activities of activation monetary policy. The functioning of the financial system will not be fully corrected as long as there will be a message in the media encouraging the banks that the global financial crisis is primarily attributable to the Federal Reserve Bank in the USA. In many para-documentary films, which, as a para-scientific explanation and education of citizens, pro-mote the philosophy of combining deregulation of financial markets with the development of a free market, and attempts to regulate markets are trying to implement the principles of real socialism, a system quite different from that considered an ultramarine US economy.

Do you agree with my opinion?

Therefore, I am asking you with the following query:

Was the picture of the sources of the global financial crisis presented in the media fully objective?

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

I described the problem of "Anti-crisis state intervention and created in media images of global financial crisis" in the publication:

Article Anti-crisis state intervention and created in media images o...

Please reply

Best wishes

In the context of the above considerations, the following question is also current:

Are economic crises usually triggered by financial crises?

In my opinion, all the largest, global, regional and national so far, but also these smaller economic crises usually originated in the financial crisis. Therefore, there is a high probability that further global or national economic crises will be triggered by the financial crisis. The financial crisis in the initial phase is usually a crisis associated with a sharp, large drop in the valuation of securities on stock exchanges. The financial crisis is usually a crisis of falling trust in the banking sector, characterized by a decline in lending, a decline in the inter-bank loan market. Sometimes, the financial crisis is triggered by a currency crisis, a strong depreciation of the national currency, and sometimes also a great hyperinflation. In some countries that sell government bonds for foreign investment banks, the economic crisis is exacerbated by the crisis of increased state finance debt. Then comes the next stage of crisis development, the stage of economic crisis determined by the deepening recession, falling income, declining consumption, production, investment, employment and rising unemployment. This crisis is deepening as long as the state does not apply effective Keynesian state intervention through effective, efficient application of selected fiscal, monetary and budgetary policy instruments on the expenditure growth side in order to finance enterprises and create new jobs in the public sector and projects carried out within this sector, under expansion of, for example, communication infrastructure. On the other hand, the reduction of crisis-generating factors in the banking sector follows the launch of assistance programs involving the purchase by central banks of assets lost and burdened with the highest level of credit risk from commercial deposit-loan and investment banks.

Do you agree with my opinion?

I described many aspects of the above issues in my publications regarding various aspects of the global financial crisis that appeared in autumn 2008.

Please reply

Best wishes

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

I conduct research in key aspects of this issue. The results of these tests are described in the following publications:

The issue of the impact of monetary policy on the stability of financial systems in the context of the global financial crisis is described in the publication:

Article ACTIVATING INTERVENTIONIST MONETARY POLICY OF THE EUROPEAN C...

Article A safe monetary central banking policy as a significant inst...

Article Anti-crisis state intervention and created in media images o...

Article Soft monetary central banking policy and Plan for Responsibl...

I invite you to discussion and cooperation.

Best wishes

Globalized financial crisis, like war, leads to atomization of nations, collapse of trade. If we understand Globalization as a term

opposed to atomization then it seems to be good, that the worst has not happened. So without some strict definition of terms,

some of what is said above cannot be properly interpreted. (I mean all this bla bla about harmfull globalization). After all you can globalize a good situation (1950-1970)? or a bad situation (around 1930)? or( around 2008)? always economically speaking. That there are financial problems is never a good indicator, maybe treaties dealing with good economic practice,

as in the EU, things will look up, but hard to achieve or enforce.

Keynesian policy would not work in some nations, the inflation prone.