Critical Globalisation

The Return of Nationalism

2009-09-19T02:56:00.000-07:00

Asia Views, Vol. IV, No. 4, August-September 2009

I.Wibowo

Lecturer at the Department of International Relations,
Faculty of Social and Political Science, University of Indonesia

As Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia celebrate their national days in August, our minds turn to what it means to be an Indonesian, a Singaporean, a Malaysian, a citizen of a nation-state. Are nation-states and nationalism still relevant as borders are demolished by the juggernaut of globalization?

Looking back to the turn of the 20th century, nationalism caused nothing but misery around the world. In the name of nationalism, one country attacked another, disregarding sovereignty. Indeed, nationalism was even directed internally to destroy those who did not belong to the “pure nation.” And so like the mythic god Janus, nationalism is two-faced.

Then came World War II and when it ended in 1945, with the culprits of war heavily penalized, nationalism still prevailed. Despite the casualties, nationalism did not disappear. On the contrary, it became a source of energy for numerous peoples around the world who wanted to liberate themselves from the yoke of colonialism. Soekarno was one of those nationalists, as was Nasser (Egypt), Nehru (India), Nyerere (Tanzania) and also Mao (China). Without turning to the spirit of nationalism, it would have been difficult for them to stir up emotional sentiment and mobilize their peoples to stand up and take arms. Independence had to be fought and died for and was not something that came easily. It was achieved with a heavy price.

Yet around the world, one country after another, learnt the harsh lesson that even after fighting for their independence, the former colonialist countries did not want to treat them as equals. The world was, and still is, governed by an organization where a select country has the final say on all issues arising in the world. The rest can only hope that this organization, known as the “United Nations”, really is doing its best to promote their interests.

Trade was supposed to be free, but in reality the “Third World” of former colonies was disadvantaged. The industrialization process they wanted to pursue was impossible to achieve without the falling terms of trade being corrected more in their favor. Increasingly, the Third World countries became convinced that they were dependent on their former masters, economically as well as politically, like the periphery to the center. No wonder that many of them joined the “Second World,” the alternate world which adopted the communist model.

It was the promise of globalization in the 1990s that raised the hopes of developing countries. In the late 1980s, Japanese management expert, Kenichi Ohmae, bravely and persuasively argued in his book The End of the Nation-States that as national borders crumble, trade would become easier and, following the free-trade theory of Adam Smith, prosperity would dawn upon the developing countries. In other words, globalization was the panacea. According to this scenario, countries, corporations, and individuals will together hand-in-hand contribute their abilities to the common development of humankind. There will no longer be differences among peoples and countries. There will no longer be a need for nationalism. Any mention of nationalism in the golden age of globalization would be considered anachronistic.

This optimism was suddenly shattered in September 2008. One by one all global actors went to the nation states asking for help. Both multinational and national corporations were on their knees as they lost billions of dollars due to – in the words of Susan Strange - “casino capitalism.” First in the US, then like a virus it spread quickly to the UK, the EU, Japan, and China. No country was spared from this global calamity. For the first time since Keynesian economic theory was shelved in the 1980s, one government after another talked about how to rescue their own economies. The state which had been considered redundant by Milton Friedman and his supporters of neo-liberal economics, was now being called back to rescue the corporations which otherwise would have dragged down the whole economy to collapse. The state became a l¬ender of the last resort.

After being marginalized for about two decades, the state has returned with a vengeance. Now countries talk less about globalization and more about saving their own country instead. “Buy American First” would have been unacceptable in 1990s. Now it sounds like music to the ears of the Americans. Similar words and expressions are heard in other countries. Indonesians say “Aku Cinta Produk Indonesia” – I love Indonesian products.

Even though delegates at the latest G-8 meeting in Italy in July this year promised not to promote protectionism, no one can guarantee that this will promise will be honored. The Economist magazine, well-known for its strong neo-liberal position, had to admit that the economy of the world is indeed looking inwardly, showing a tendency of “economic nationalism.” (Feb 5, 2009)

But nationalism had already returned a few years earlier when terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001. The US reacted swiftly by adopting the Patriot Act to stop terrorism in its soil, giving rise to nationalism. Houses in the US put up flags and people began wearing the pin of the star-spangled banner. Other countries who were also feeling the brunt of terrorism slowly adopted nationalism as their platform to unite their citizens against terrorists. India in the face of a terrorist attack in Mumbay and China with the demonstrators in Tibet and Xinjiang, both found refuge in nationalism. Indonesia, after the bomb attack by terrorists in Jakarta, appealed to a “United Indonesia” prompting an emotional response by the people .

Globalization at its peak managed to downplay nationalism, leading some to conclude that there is the “flattening of the world.” But nationalism, however, has resurfaced and the neo-liberal discourse has fallen to the wayside. People are no longer ashamed to talk about the nation and the nation-state.

From now on, national days and independence days will be celebrated around the world with a fervor rarely seen before. Perhaps people will now reflect with more nuance on the meaning of nation-state and the promise it holds for its citizens.

Proteksionisme Marak

2009-09-19T01:49:00.000-07:00

Hampir Semua Negara G-20 Melanggar Kesepakatan

Kompas, Sabtu, 19 September 2009

WASHINGTON, Kamis - Para pemimpin 20 negara perekonomian terbesar di dunia telah bertekad melawan proteksionisme akhir November lalu. Pada April lalu, tekad tersebut juga diulangi. Kenyataannya, di sebagian dari negara itu praktik proteksionisme makin marak.

Selain itu, perselisihan perdagangan pun masih tetap marak. Laporan dari Global Trade Alert, sebuah organisasi perdagangan yang terkait dengan Bank Dunia, secara terpisah mengatakan, lebih dari 100 langkah diskriminasi perdagangan dilakukan oleh negara-negara G-20.

Heather Conley, peneliti di Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), AS, mengatakan keadaan makin memanas. Perselisihan dagang antara AS dan China mengenai ban dan ayam asal China merupakan contoh paling baru. AS mengenakan hambatan tarif baru terhadap dua produk China itu.

Hampir semua anggota Kelompok 20 (G-20) yang akan bertemu di Pittsburgh, AS, pekan depan telah melanggar. Mereka mengingkari kesepakatan mengenai melawan proteksionisme yang dibuat sebelumnya di Washington dan London.

Setiap negara memiliki kepentingan untuk bangkit dari resesi. Tekanan untuk bekerja sama tampaknya akan melemah karena ketidaksabaran menunggu pemulihan ekonomi.

Kepentingan nasional merupakan salah satu agenda pokok. Hal itu termasuk keinginan untuk melindungi industri domestik dari serbuan produk asing.

Beberapa pemerintahan sedang menimbang-nimbang kapan mereka dapat meluncurkan stimulus lagi seperti peningkatan anggaran pemerintah yang lebih besar serta pengenaan tingkat suku bunga rendah. Untuk menghindari stimulus, pemerintahan ingin menggenjot pembelian produksi domestik, dengan melakukan proteksionisme terselubung. Padahal di sisi lain, proteksionisme malah memperlambat pemulihan ekonomi global.

Melunak

Dari Brussells, markas Komisi Uni Eropa, dilaporkan, Perancis siap menerima kesepakatan G-20 tentang bonus yang tidak akan dibatasi secara langsung. Namun, ditekankan akan ada langkah-langkah yang bertujuan membatasi pemberian bonus.

Presiden Perancis Nicolas Sarkozy melunakkan pandangan soal itu. Sebelumnya dia mengancam akan meninggalkan pertemuan G-20 jika tidak ada pembatasan bonus yang jelas. Dia menuntut itu agar dituangkan dalam deklarasi G-20.

Sarkozy mengatakan, pembatasan bonus itu merupakan hal penting bagi upaya reformasi yang tengah dilakukan Presiden AS Barack Obama mengenai sistem bonus.

”Poin yang akan menjadi kendala adalah soal pembatasan bonus. Namun, hal itu bukan menjadi masalah dalam posisi Eropa sepanjang kami memiliki kesepakatan pasti soal masalah lain, seperti penalti terhadap bonus, bonus yang dibagi berulang kali, transparansi atas kinerja perusahaan, dan tingkat permodalan perusahaan,” ujar Sarkozy.

Obama menolak ide pembatasan bonus pada tingkat individu. Presiden AS lebih suka menggunakan seperangkat aturan untuk membatasi bonus yang dibagikan berlebihan dan tidak sesuai kinerja perusahaan. Presiden AS mengusulkan sistem pengawasan, yang membuat perusahaan tak mengobral bonus untuk para eksekutif yang tidak produktif. (Reuters/AP/joe)

http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/09/19/04293481/proteksionisme.marak

Jumlah Personel TNI AD di Freeport Akan Ditambah

2009-09-01T18:33:00.001-07:00

Kompas, Selasa, 1 September 2009 | 04:33 WIB

Makassar, Kompas - Jumlah prajurit TNI Angkatan Darat yang dilibatkan dalam operasi pemulihan keamanan PT Freeport Indonesia di Timika, Papua, rencananya akan ditambah menjadi sekitar 600 orang. Selain itu, satuan pasukan juga akan dipisahkan untuk mengefektifkan kinerja TNI dan Polri dalam memulihkan keamanan di perusahaan tambang emas dan tembaga tersebut. Namun, seluruh operasi keamanan tetap dikendalikan Kepolisian Daerah Papua.

Kepala Bidang Humas Kepolisian Daerah (Polda) Papua Komisaris Besar Agus Rianto ketika dihubungi di Timika, ibu kota Kabupaten Mimika, mengungkapkan hal itu, Senin (31/8). Menurut dia, operasi gabungan TNI dan polisi akan berlangsung sampai November 2009.

”Memang ada permintaan dari kami agar jumlah prajurit TNI yang dilibatkan dalam operasi pemulihan keamanan di areal PT Freeport Indonesia (FI) ditambah menjadi sekitar 600 orang. Hal itu sesuai dengan pembicaraan antara Kepala Polda Papua dan Panglima Kodam XVII/Cenderawasih,” kata Agus.

Penambahan prajurit TNI itu, lanjut Agus, terkait dengan perubahan struktur organisasi Satuan Tugas Amole Timika II yang melaksanakan operasi pemulihan keamanan di areal PT FI. ”Pergantian Satuan Tugas Amole Timika II akan efektif berlaku 1 September. Personel yang terlibat sekitar 1.300 orang, termasuk 600 prajurit TNI. Selebihnya polisi,” kata Agus.

Secara terpisah, Kepala Penerangan Kodam XVII/Cenderawasih Letkol Susilo menyatakan, pihaknya akan menyiapkan tambahan prajurit TNI AD yang dibutuhkan. ”Kemungkinan akan diambilkan dari lingkungan Kodam Cenderawasih,” ujarnya

Terkait penambahan pasukan TNI AD itu, di Jakarta, Poengki Indarti dari Imparsial—lembaga swadaya masyarakat yang berkiprah di bidang hak asasi manusia—berpendapat, pengamanan PT FI sepatutnya diserahkan kepada polisi saja. Ia khawatir, jika TNI terus dilibatkan dalam pengamanan wilayah tersebut, hal itu akan berdampak buruk pada proses penegakan hak asasi manusia di sana (ROW/JOS)

Mandiri, Berdikari, Merdeka!

2009-08-24T15:25:00.002-07:00

Kompas, Senin, 24 Agustus 2009

Oleh Siswono Yudo Husodo

Sudah 64 tahun kita merdeka, suatu jembatan emas untuk mencapai bangsa yang antara lain ”berdiri di atas kaki sendiri (Berdikari)” dalam bidang ekonomi (menurut ajaran Bung Karno dalam Trisakti).

Namun, justru saat ini terasa tingkat ketergantungan kita pada barang-barang impor (yang sebenarnya dapat diproduksi sendiri) amat tinggi. Banyak potensi ekonomi yang sebenarnya mampu kita kelola sendiri diserahkan kepada asing. Memang, pada era globalisasi ini banyak pihak ingin menjadikan negeri ini sebagai pasar bagi produk dan jasa mereka.

Kita telah menjadi bangsa yang kurang percaya diri dengan tingkat ketergan- tungan yang amat tinggi, menjauh dari cita-cita membangun bangsa yang mandiri yang mengelola berbagai potensi ekonomi yang ada pada dirinya untuk sebesar-besar kemakmuran rakyat. Kecenderungan dominasi asing dalam berbagai kegiatan ekonomi kian nyata dan porsi nasional kian menurun.

Sedikitnya ada 23 bank umum nasional dimiliki asing dengan penguasaan di atas 44,5 persen dari total saham yang agresif menggarap pasar hingga ke pedesaan dan menyebabkan menyusutnya pangsa pasar Bank Perkreditan Rakyat (BPR) di sektor mikro, kecil, dan menengah atau MKM (Kompas, 19/8/2009). Dengan margin imbal hasil lebih besar dari segmen korporasi, bisnis MKM amat menggiurkan dan menjadi motif akuisisi bank lokal oleh investor asing. Banyak BPR gulung tikar.

Ini adalah potret kian terpinggirkannya pelaku usaha nasional sejak pemerintah dipaksa berbagai kekuatan internasional untuk meningkatkan liberalisasi, privatisasi, dan deregulasi.

Pasar pangan domestik sudah dibanjiri impor, mulai dari daging sapi (30 persen kebutuhan nasional), susu (90 persen), garam (60 persen), kedelai (70 persen), bawang putih hingga gula tebu (40 persen), dan buah-buahan. Sebenarnya, produk-produk itu dapat kita produksi sendiri dan menghemat devisa. Pedagang pasar tradisional di kota-kota besar sudah merasakan hebatnya dampak kehadiran hypermarket milik asing.

Sebagai negara yang telah berpengalaman lebih dari 100 tahun di bidang eksploitasi migas, dari 120 KPS (kontraktor profit sharing), 90 persennya milik asing. Produksi minyak kita juga terus turun, dengan cost recovery (biaya yang ditanggung pemerintah) meningkat tinggi. Dalam RAPBN 2010, pemerintah menetapkan biaya cost recovery 13,1 miliar dollar AS, naik dari 11,05 miliar dollar AS tahun 2009. Ini hanya untuk meningkatkan produksi minyak 5.000 barrel per hari dan gas 232 MMBTU per hari.

Dari total produksi nasional sekitar 1 juta barrel/hari, yang dihasilkan Pertamina hanya 75.000 barrel/hari, sama dengan Medco, swasta nasional. Mayoritasnya asing, terbesar Chevron, 450.000 barrel/ hari. Secara bertahap, ladang minyak dan gas nasional kita dikuasai asing karena aturan untuk menggarap berbagai proyek eksplorasi minyak bumi dan gas di Tanah Air harus melalui tender internasional.

Mayoritas pertambangan perak, nikel, batu bara, dan lainnya juga dikelola asing, bahkan tembaga dan emas, 100 persen dikuasai asing (Freeport dan Newmont). Perkebunan kelapa sawit 30 persennya dimiliki perusahaan asing, padahal kebun sawit efektif untuk pemerataan kesejahteraan, meningkatkan kesejahteraan rakyat melalui konsep inti plasma. Kini ada sekitar 300.000 TKI terampil bekerja di kebun-kebun sawit di Malaysia. Jika saja, dulu, masing-masing diberi kesempatan membeli kebun sawit yang dilelang amat murah oleh BPPN seluas 2-3 ha/KK, tentu naiknya harga CPO sampai tiga kali lipat dinikmati petani kita sendiri.

Sektor telekomunikasi yang amat menguntungkan juga sudah jatuh ke tangan asing. Tragisnya, saat kita ingin memilikinya kembali, pihak asing menawarkan dengan harga berlipat.

Mengavling laut

Indonesia telah membiarkan berbagai kebijakan ekonomi diatur konsultan asing. Bertahun-tahun mereka ada di sejumlah instansi pemerintah. Ini menghapus banyak sektor dari daftar negatif bagi investor asing tanpa memperkuat pengusaha lokal dan mengobral aset ekonomi yang amat prospektif dengan harga amat murah. Pengusaha Indonesia juga terkendala dengan mahal dan seretnya kredit.

Pemerintah bersemangat mengundang investor asing, sementara modal amat besar pengusaha nasional disimpan di luar negeri.

Menteri Kehutanan menawarkan ratusan ribu hektar lahan kepada investor asing untuk bidang perkebunan. Bila hal ini tak dikoreksi, dalam tempo singkat perkebunan di Tanah Air akan dilahap asing. Pertanyaannya, apa bedanya dengan masa penjajahan Belanda?

Kini sedang berkembang diskusi untuk mengavling laut dan menjualnya kepada investor. Tak terbayang bila sebentar lagi pengelolaan laut dan kekayaan di dalamnya juga dikuasai asing. Sekarang saja ruang perairan kita praktis dikuasai asing. Sekitar 96,6 persen muatan angkutan laut dari Indonesia ke luar negeri diambil kapal asing dan 46,8 persen muatan laut dalam negeri dikuasai kapal berbendera asing (Media Indonesia, 6/12/2007).

China, negara yang bersama-sama kita melakukan liberalisasi, privatisasi, dan deregulasi, tidak mengalami hal seperti itu. China berusaha agar kegiatan ekonomi dikuasai warga sendiri dan menghindari intervensi asing dalam kebijakan ekonomi. Kepemilikan asing dalam jumlah mayoritas relatif tak diizinkan.

Syarat investasi asing di China untuk otomotif tidaklah ringan. Para investor wajib memiliki mitra lokal dan melakukan alih teknologi dalam jadwal ketat. Kini, China menjadi produsen otomotif mandiri dan berdaya saing tinggi.

Saya berdoa agar di tengah persaingan sengit dalam memperebutkan dana dan investasi asing, pemerintah dapat bertindak tepat dalam melindungi pelaku usaha domestik. Jangan sampai demi meningkatkan pertumbuhan PDB, BUMN dijual murah, porsi mayoritas asing diizinkan pada lebih banyak sektor, bahkan instrumen untuk melindungi pelaku dalam negeri berupa daftar negatif investasi asing dihapus seluruhnya.

Kita perlu membangun kesadaran umum bahwa kita memiliki pasar amat besar, kaya sumber daya alam. Dan potensi pertanian, perkebunan, perikanan, dan peternakan harus pertama-tama digunakan untuk mengembangkan potensi ekonomi rakyat sendiri.

Siswono Yudo Husodo Ketua Yayasan Pendidikan Universitas Pancasila

http://koran.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/08/24/02524235/mandiri.berdikari.merdeka

Kebijakan Ekonomi Indonesia 100 Persen Liberal

2009-06-08T23:57:00.000-07:00

Kompas Online, Selasa, 9 Juni 2009 | 13:31 WIB

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - Beberapa pihak menolak disebut sebagai penganut ekonomi neoliberalisme, namun, kenyataannya neoliberalisme telah merasuk hampir di seluruh kegiatan ekonomi di Indonesia.

"Bohong kalau ada yang bilang Indonesia atau seseorang bebas dari neoliberal. Praktik ekonomi neoliberal telah digunakan dalam seluruh praktik investasi, perdagangan, dan keuangan di negara ini," ujar Indah Suksmaningsih, Direktur Eksekutiftif Institute Global for Justice (IGJ), dalam konferensi Pers Pernyataan Sikap IGJ, di Jakarta, (9/8).

Untuk memperkuat argumennya, Indah memberikan beberapa contoh. Yang pertama di bidang investasi, puncak penerapan aturan yang berwatak neoliberalisme adalah dalam Undang-undang investasi, yaitu dikeluarkannya undang-undang nomor 25 tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal (UU PM).

Undang-undang semasa Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhono ini memberikan fasilitas, intensif, dan kemudahan yang sangat luas kepada penanam modal. "Penguasa tanah diperbolehkan hingga 95 tahun, zaman Hindia Belanda saja batasnya cuma sampai 75 tahun," terangnya.

Contoh kedua penerapan neoliberalisne di Indonesia berada di sektor keuangan. Dengan dikeluarkannya Undang-undang RI Nomor 23 tahun 1999 tentang Bank Indonesia, sebagaimana yang telah direvisi dengan Undang-undang RI Nomor 3 tahun 2004 , menjadikan BI sebagai lembaga independen menjadi dasar dari liberalisasi keuangan. "BI tidak lagi berperan menyalurkan anggaran bagi investasi,akan tetapi hanya menjalankan fungsi moneter, menjaga nilai tukar mata uang dan inflasi dalam rangka makro ekonomi semata," terangnya.

Contoh selanjutnya, berada di bidang perdagangan. Pemerintah telah melakukan perjanjian perdagangan bebas Free Trade Agreement (FTA) dengan hampir semua negara maju dan Uni Eropa. Perjanjian perdagangan bebas hampir meliputi semua sektor.

"Apa yang disepakati FTA jauh lebih menyeluruh dibanding dengan WTO, karena menyangkut seluruh aspek liberalisasi perdagangan dan jasa. Contoh yang paling baru adalah rendahnya tarif bea masuk pada barang-barang ekspor," papar Indah.

Dan contoh terakhir, lanjutnya adalah ekonomi nasional yang didominasi modal asing. Ekonomi Indonesia telah digantung dalam utang yang sangat besar, saat ini jumlahnya mencapai 149 , 14 miliar USD hingga kuartal IV tahun 2008 . "Dengan utang sebesar itu, pemerintah dengan mudah disetir oleh pemodal asing. Dan tidak berani berbuat apa-apa," ujarnya.

"Jelas sudah kalau sekarang kita memang menganut ekonomi liberal, bukan kerakyatan lagi," tegas Indah

KOMPAS.com Rosdianah Dewi

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/0609/13313833Kebijakan.Ekonomi.Indonesia.100.Persen.Liberal

Boediono Memang Penganut Neoliberal?

2009-05-26T01:12:00.000-07:00

DHONI SETIAWAN
Jumat, 22 Mei 2009 | 13:58 WIB

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com — Meskipun bantahan demi bantahan diluncurkan oleh Boediono maupun pihak SBY sebagai pasangannya yang akan maju dalam pemilu presiden mendatang, sejumlah pengamat ekonomi keukeuh menilai Boediono memang menganut paham ekonomi neoliberalisme. Apa saja argumen yang mendasari klaim tersebut?

Mantan Menneg PPN/ Kepala Bappenas zaman Megawati, Kwik Kian Gie, mengatakan punya banyak catatan dalam rekam jejak Boediono sebagai pejabat publik. Sebagian besar langkahnya adalah 'menjual' sumber daya dan fasilitas publik kepada para investor. "Tanya pada Pak Boediono, dia berpendapat atau tidak ketika jalan raya yang mulus bebas hambatan itu harus dikenakan tarif tol, diserahkan kepada investor swasta, domestik maupun internasional. Oleh karena itu, investornya buat laba dan rakyat yang harus bayar tol!?" seru Kwik seusai diskusi bertajuk "JK-Win untuk Indonesia Adil dan Sejahtera: Ekonomi Kemandirian vs Ekonomi Neoliberal" di Jakarta, Jumat (22/5).

Padahal, menurut Kwik, di negara-negara besar di Amerika dan Eropa, seluruh fasilitas dan sumber daya publik dapat dinikmati rakyat secara gratis. Lalu apa lagi? Kwik kemudian menyebutkan beberapa pertanyaan yang patut dilontarkan kepada Boediono untuk membuktikan pria asal Blitar tersebut memiliki mazhab neoliberal.

"Betul atau tidak bahwa Boediono pro penjualan bahan bakar minyak (BBM) suatu waktu ketika Boediono menjabat sebagai Menteri Keuangan meski harganya tinggi? Betul atau tidak bahwa Boediono pro semua jalan bebas hambatan harus dikenakan biaya? Betul atau tidak bahwa Boediono menganggap barang-barang publik yang penting-penting menjadi ajang cari laba untuk investor asing?" tanya Kwik panjang lebar.

Pengamat ekonomi Hendri Saparini dari ECONIT memiliki pendapat serupa. Tiga pilar neoliberal, yaitu stabilitas makro, agenda liberalisasi, dan agenda privatisasi, yang dicetuskan dalam Washington Consensus menjiwai tindakan-tindakan Boediono.

Menurut Hendri, seorang penganut neoliberal tak akan meninggalkannya sedikit pun. Dalam pilar pertama, seorang neoliberal akan membuat kebijakan hanya demi stabilitas makro. Hendri menilai pernyataan-pernyataan SBY menunjukkan ciri ini. Pilihan kebijakannya pun demikian. Mazhab ini mengharuskan pengambilan kebijakan pengurangan atau pemotongan subsidi.

"Tidak salah jika dalam pidato, SBY mengatakan akan menekan inflasi dan ukuran stabilitas makro. Itu hanya akan menguntungkan kelompok kapital," tutur Hendri.

Belum lagi agenda liberalisasi dan privatisasi yang dilakukan oleh Boediono ketika menjabat sebagai Menkeu dalam masa pemerintahan Megawati dan Menko Ekuin dalam pemerintahan SBY. Misalnya, dalam penyusunan UU Migas. Hendri menilai pemerintahan SBY juga marak melakukan privatisasi. Bahkan, saat ini 40 Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) sudah didata untuk diprivatisasi, antara lain PT Krakatau Steel dan PT Kereta Api Indonesia.

KOMPAS.com Caroline Damanik

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/05/22/13581432/boediono.memang.penganut.neoliberal

INFID blames WB for part in tragedy

2009-05-08T18:39:00.000-07:00

The Jakarta Post, 13 April 2009

The International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID) said the World Bank might have been partly responsible for the Situ Gintung dam burst on March 27.

"Not many people realized the maintenance and management of the Situ Gintung dam was related to a World Bank project," Don K. Marut, executive director of INFID, said in a statement.

Marut blamed the deteriorating conditions of the dam in Cireundeu, Banten, partly on World Bank loan requirements the Indonesian government had to comply with under a project scheme, named Water Resources Sector Adjustment Loan (WATSAL). The US$300 million WATSAL, loan agreement was singned on May 28, 1999.

Marut said under the scheme, the Indonesian government was required to revise its laws and regulations to make them compatibel with WB standards. These requirements, among other things, resulted in authority on irrigation matters being delegated to the associations of water-users.

"Many lakes, including Situ Gintung, were neglected due to authority being delegated and lack of coordination among relevant parties," Marut said. "Given the [Situ Gintung] destuction is a result of the loan agreement under the WATSAL, we demand the World Bank admits to the Indonesian public the mistake it made in the WATSAL project."

INFID also called on the Bank to cancel and write off the loan deal.

However, Jakarta's WB senior governance adviser Douglas E. Ramage denied INFID's allegations and regarded them as "unfounded and groundless."

"The World Bank's WATSAL laon has no operational connection to Situ Gintung. The suggestion that the WATSAL loan, which closed in 2004 and the government policies and decision that it supported led to the collapse of the Situ Gintung dam are unfounded," Ramage said in a statement.

Ramage added there had not been any irrigation from the Situ Gintung dam since the early 1990s. "The irrigation function of the Situ Gintung ceased when the land was converted into a residential area. For that reason, there were no associations of water users at Situ Gintung. Therefore, any suggestion that poor maintenance has anything to do with management by water users association is also groundless."

The National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) reported the dam burst claimed 90 lives, while four persons were still missing and 295 families were still living in temporary shelters.

Jakarta Police have been questioning some government officials who allegedly neglected the maintenance of the dam, ultimately leading to the disaster. Before the disaster, local residents reported they had found cracks in the dam walls. (JP/iwp)

Esensi Utang RI Melenceng

2009-05-08T18:20:00.000-07:00

Pemerintah Tak Punya Manajemen Utang Independen

Koran Jakarta,
Selasa, 05 Mei 2009 01:36 WIB

JAKARTA – Esensi utang luar negeri Indonesia selama ini melenceng karena pinjaman bukan untuk meningkatkan produktivitas, melainkan untuk menambal defisit anggaran negara akibat utang lama dan mempertahankan nilai tukar rupiah.

Tawaran utang baru dari ADB lebih banyak motif mencari untung bagi lembaga itu. Pemerintah setiap tahun harus membayar bunga utang hingga ratusan triliun rupiah.

JAKARTA – Esensi utang luar negeri Indonesia selama ini melenceng karena pinjaman bukan untuk meningkatkan produktivitas, melainkan untuk menambal defisit anggaran negara akibat utang lama dan mempertahankan nilai tukar rupiah.

Karena itu, pemerintah seharusnya tidak perlu menerima tawaran pinjaman lagi dari Bank Pembangunan Asia (ADB) karena akan melanggengkan beban berat Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara (APBN). Tahun ini, lembaga itu menganggarkan utang hingga dua miliar dollar AS untuk Indonesia.

Ekonom senior Kwik Kian Gie menilai penggunaan utang luar negeri Indonesia selama ini tidak produktif sehingga melenceng dari esensinya. Jika pemerintah menerima utang baru dari ADB, hal ini membuktikan tim ekonomi lebih memihak kepentingan asing.

“Saya tidak pernah melihat alasan yang jelas dalam kebijakan mencari utang luar negeri,” ujarnya, Senin (4/5).

Kwik juga mempertanyakan alasan pemerintah berutang yakni untuk menambal defisit anggaran dan memperkuat nilai tukar rupiah. Pasalnya, defisit yang timbul selama ini justru disebabkan tingginya beban cicilan pokok dan bunga utang. Tujuan untuk menambah likuiditas dollar AS di dalam negeri juga dinilai absurd. Ketika rupiah melemah, pemerintah justru akan menjual cadangan dollar ke pasar.

Menurut Kwik, berdasarkan konsep yang diterima secara internasional, utang harus bisa dibayar kembali dari hasil produktivitas penggunaannya. Namun, untuk kasus Indonesia, utang luar negeri justru tidak efektif. Ini terbukti dari neraca (pembiayaan) utang luar negeri yang selalu defisit. Artinya, pembayaran cicilan utang (pokok dan bunganya) masih jauh lebih besar dari penarikan utang baru. Akibatnya, saldo utang Indonesia justru terus menumpuk.

Berdasarkan catatan, setiap tahun APBN “membuang” lebih dari 100 triliun rupiah hanya untuk pembayaran bunga utang (Lihat infografis).

Jadi, kata Kwik, tawaran utang baru itu lebih disebabkan kepentingan ADB untuk mencari untung dari pinjaman tersebut. APBN sendiri sebenarnya tidak terlalu membutuhkannya yang terbukti dari realisasi belanja yang selalu surplus.

Ekonom dari Econit Hendri Saparini menyatakan pemerintah harus mengukur ulang efektivitas utang luar negeri karena dinilai tidak memberikan manfaat.

Menurut dia, hal ini disebabkan pemerintah tidak memiliki manajemen utang yang dikelola secara independen. Manajemen utang pemerintah, lanjut dia, hanya mengukur rasio utang terhadap produk domestik bruto (PDB).

Seharusnya, kata Hendri, manajemen utang menggunakan ukuran efektivitas dan indikator keberhasilan program pembangunan yang didanai utang luar negeri.
"Dengan demikian, pemerintah tidak bisa seenaknya menambah utang hanya dengan pertimbangan bahwa rasio utang terhadap PDB aman," tegas dia.

Melahirkan Krisis

Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono pada pembukaan sidang tahunan ADB di Nusa Dua, Bali, Senin, mengatakan pemerintah menilai keberadaan ADB masih positif. Pinjaman dan pendampingan dari ADB dianggap memberikan dampak yang positif bagi kesejahteraan masyarakat.

"Dalam 42 tahun terakhir, ADB telah membantu menciptakan kehidupan yang lebih baik di Asia-Pasifik. Kami mengagumi kesetiaan dan profesionalisme yang ditunjukkan ADB selama ini," kata Yudhoyono.

Namun, Endi Saragih dari Serikat Petani Indonesia mengatakan kehadiran dan keterlibatan ADB selama ini hanya melahirkan krisis di berbagai sektor.

"Selama 42 tahun berdirinya, ADB telah menyebabkan timbulnya bencana kelaparan di sejumlah negara Asia. Jika ini diteruskan, kehadiran ADB hanya akan memperlebar kemiskinan di Asia," kata dia saat berunjuk rasa di Denpasar.

Menanggapi pernyataan Presiden Yudhoyono, Hendri menyarankan agar Presiden berhati-hati dalam memberikan pernyataan dukungan. "Ini bisa memunculkan pandangan publik bahwa presiden kita menghendaki penambahan utang dan makin bergantung pada ADB," kata dia.

Persepsi itu, lanjut Hendri, akan mengakibatkan tim ekonomi Yudhoyono makin jor-joran dalam menjalankan kebijakan ekonomi yang hanya mengandalkan pada pendanaan dari utang.

(aji/ito/did/Ant/AR-1)

Krisis Finansial Membuktikan Ada yang Keliru

2009-05-05T20:05:00.001-07:00

Kompas, Selasa, 5 Mei 2009 | 04:56 WIB

Krisis keuangan tahun 1997-1998 membuat sebagian besar negara di Asia terpukul. Kawasan lain di dunia relatif aman. Satu dekade berlalu, krisis keuangan kembali menerpa AS pada akhir tahun 2008. Seluruh dunia pun ikut terganggu karena AS merupakan lokomotif utama ekonomi dan perdagangan dunia.

Krisis keuangan kali ini membuktikan ada yang salah dalam sistem pembangunan ekonomi internasional yang didukung lembaga-lembaga multilateral, seperti Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia, Bank Dunia, Dana Moneter Internasional, dan bank-bank regional, seperti Bank Pembangunan Asia (ADB).

Pernyataan itu dilontarkan Emil Salim, mantan Menteri Negara Lingkungan Hidup, dalam panel diskusi ”Responding to the Inevitable: Climate Change Adaptation Challenges and Opportunities in Asia and the Pacific” di Nusa Dua, Bali, Minggu (3/5). Diskusi ini berlangsung berkenaan dengan adanya sidang tahunan ke-42 ADB di Nusa Dua, 2- 5 Mei.

”Perubahan tengah berlangsung di semua sektor. Karena itu, tampaknya lembaga-lembaga multilateral tidak bisa melanjutkan paradigma lama,” ujar Emil Salim.

Dengan perubahan itu, Emil Salim menjadi lebih optimistis pada perundingan di Konferensi Para Pihak Ke-15 mengenai Konvensi Perubahan Iklim yang akan berlangsung di Kopenhagen, Denmark, pada akhir tahun 2009 ini.

Sebagai pembicara terakhir setelah Salvano Briceno, Direktur Strategi Internasional untuk pengurangan Bencana Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa; Warren Evans dari Bank Dunia; Luc Gnacada, Sekretaris Eksekutif Konvensi PBB untuk Melawan Penggurunan; dan Ashok Khosla, Presiden International Union for Conservation of Nature, Emil Salim beberapa kali menyelipkan kritiknya terhadap praktik-praktik ADB.

Dalam soal adaptasi dan upaya mengurangi dampak perubahan iklim, misalnya, ia mempertanyakan kenapa lembaga keuangan, seperti Bank Dunia dan ADB, memberikan bantuan pinjaman kepada industri-industri berbasis batu bara dan pembangunan jalan raya yang tidak ramah iklim.

Modus utang baru

Menurut Faby Tumiwa dari Institute for Essential Services Reform, ada kecenderungan lembaga-lembaga keuangan multilateral menjadikan adaptasi perubahan iklim sebagai modus baru pemberian utang.

”Seperti cara baru untuk berbisnis,” ujar Faby seraya menyebut Climate Investment Fund Bank Dunia dan mekanisme serupa yang segera diluncurkan ADB.

Mantan Duta Besar PBB untuk Tujuan Pembangunan Milenium (MDGs) Kawasan Asia Pasifik, Erna Witoelar, juga menolak penambahan utang untuk pencapaian MDGs, khususnya di bidang pendidikan dan kesehatan. ”Kita harus bisa mencapainya dengan sumber daya sendiri,” ujar Erna.

Dihubungi di tempat terpisah, Dani Setiawan dari Koalisi Antiutang (KAU) menyesalkan rencana pemerintah memberikan tambahan modal untuk ADB sebesar Rp 400 miliar per tahun mulai tahun 2010. ”Uang itu lebih tepat digunakan untuk stimulus ekonomi rakyat dalam situasi krisis ini,” ujar Dani.

Mengutip Global Development Finance yang diterbitkan Bank Dunia tahun 2008, Dani menyatakan, telah terjadi peningkatan jumlah utang 44 kali lipat dari negara berkembang dalam kurun tahun 1970-2007, dari sekitar 70 miliar dollar AS menjadi sekitar 3.300 miliar dollar AS. ”Sebenarnya operasi lembaga-lembaga keuangan dunia terus menyebabkan krisis utang di negara berkembang,” kata Dani.

Sementara Chris Ng, Sekretaris Regional Union Network International (UNI), di Nusa Dua, menegaskan, UNI bersama dua lembaga swadaya masyarakat internasional lain, Public Services International (PSI) dan Building and Wood Worker Internasional (BWI), bergabung dalam suatu wadah bernama Global Union, meminta ADB merevisi Strategi ADB 2020 karena tidak mengakomodasi perlindungan buruh secara memadai. Global Union mengklaim mewakili 52 juta pekerja di seluruh dunia.

Intinya, krisis keuangan dunia yang membuat banyak orang menderita merupakan kekeliruan lembaga keuangan internasional, termasuk ADB. Kini mereka dituntut.(BEN/OIN/MH)

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/05/05/04561474/krisis.finansial.membuktikan.ada.yang.keliru

Puluhan Aktivis Anti-ADB Protes

2009-05-05T20:03:00.000-07:00

Kompas, Selasa, 5 Mei 2009 | 04:44 WIB

Denpasar, Kompas - Puluhan aktivis anti-Bank Pembangunan Asia yang tergabung dalam Asian People’s Movement Against ADB melancarkan protes. Namun, aksi mereka dihadang polisi saat bergerak menuju lokasi sidang tahunan ADB di Nusa Dua, Bali, Senin (4/5).

Mereka akhirnya gagal menggelar aksi demonstrasi yang direncanakan berlangsung saat Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, membuka sidang tahunan ke-42 ADB di Nusa Dua. Para aktivis terpaksa memindahkan aksi mereka ke Denpasar, belasan kilometer dari Nusa Dua.

Sebagian besar rombongan demonstran itu berangkat dari Denpasar menaiki sepeda dan sebagian lagi menumpang bus. Namun, sesampainya di perempatan jalan By Pass Ngurah Rai Benoa sekitar 10 kilometer dari lokasi sidang ADB, mereka dihadang puluhan polisi. Demonstran yang menggunakan sepeda dipaksa balik arah ke Denpasar.

Pada waktu yang sama, rombongan para aktivis Seafish asal Filipina yang berangkat ke Nusa Dua dengan tiga mobil dihentikan tepat di pintu masuk kawasan Bali Tourism Development and Corporation (BTDC) Nusa Dua. Mereka dilarang masuk ke kompleks itu. Mobil digeledah dan sempat digiring ke Kantor Polsek Kuta Selatan dan diinterogasi sebelum dikawal menuju Denpasar. Mereka yang menggunakan bus juga harus menjalani pemeriksaan di pinggir jalan By Pass Ngurah Rai.

Perwira Humas Poltabes Denpasar Komisaris Ketut Suwetra menyatakan, aksi demonstrasi tidak dapat digelar di kawasan Nusa Dua. Kawasan itu dinyatakan steril dari aksi unjuk rasa selama pertemuan ADB berlangsung 2-5 Mei 2009. Polisi juga telah memasang barikade pengamanan berlapis untuk demonstran di simpang patung Dewa Ruci dan patung Ngurah Rai

”Kami meminta Anda kembali ke Denpasar. Silakan gelar aksi di sana. Kita semua ingin agar Bali aman,” kata Suwetra.

Para aktivis memprotes keras penghadangan dan pelarangan mereka menggelar aksi demo di Nusa Dua. Dengan kecewa, mereka pun kembali ke Denpasar.

Utang menyengsarakan

Perwakilan aktivis, M Iqbal, menyatakan, polisi telah melakukan tindakan yang bertentangan dengan demokrasi. Karena kebebasan untuk menyampaikan pendapat diatur dalam Undang- Undang Nomor 9 Tahun 1998.

”Ini juga sekaligus ironis karena apa yang kami perjuangkan juga kepentingan rakyat. Kami tegas menolak ADB karena programnya memberikan utang kepada negara-negara jelas-jelas hanya merugikan dan menyengsarakan masyarakat negara-negara pengutang, termasuk Indonesia,” kata Iqbal.

Ia menyatakan, para aktivis akan tetap nekat mencari cara melanjutkan aksi menentang ADB, termasuk pertemuan tahunan di Nusa Dua itu, hingga pertemuan itu berakhir pada 5 Mei ini. Aksi kemarin ditutup dengan membacakan Deklarasi Bali 2009 di depan Konsulat Jenderal Jepang.

Deklarasi itu terdiri dari empat pokok pikiran. Menuntut penghapusan utang atas proyek-proyek ADB yang tidak sah dan telah memperdalam jeratan utang. Kedua, melawan upaya yang terus dilakukan ADB sebagai penggerak utama privatisasi pangan, benih, air, tanah, energi, kekayaan pesisir dan laut, serta layanan sosial di kawasan Asia.

Ketiga, mengecam dukungan ADB untuk pihak swasta yang telah menguatkan monopoli penguasaan korporasi atas sektor energi, perikanan, pertanian, dan sumber daya air. Keempat, menolak kebijakan ADB yang sengaja mendukung pembiayaan proyek yang terbukti merusak lingkungan dan melahirkan ketidakadilan sosial dan pelanggaran HAM. (BEN/MH/OIN)

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/05/05/04444277/puluhan.aktivis.anti-adb.protes

China's Dollar Deception

2009-04-06T06:15:00.000-07:00

Washingtong Post, Monday, April 6, 2009; A15

By Robert J. Samuelson

We are in a race between economic recovery and economic nationalism. At last week's Group of 20 summit, leading nations agreed to roughly $1 trillion of additional lending, mostly through the International Monetary Fund, to help end the worldwide slump. But beneath the veil of consensus, countries are maneuvering to protect their economies and blame someone else for the crisis. Will the world economic order overcome these stresses or give way to a global free-for-all, characterized by rampant protectionism and nationalistic subsidies and preferences?
Emblematic of the tension is a recent proposal by Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China (PBOC), to replace the dollar as the world's major international currency. In a paper, Zhou argued that today's crisis reflects "the inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks" of the dollar-based global economy. The PBOC is China's Federal Reserve; Zhou is no obscure bureaucrat.
It may surprise Americans that, up to a point, his analysis is correct. The dollarized world economy developed huge instabilities -- vast trade imbalances (American deficits, Asian surpluses) and massive, offsetting international money flows. But Zhou's omissions are equally revealing. To wit: China is heavily implicated in the dollar system's failings. By keeping its currency artificially depressed -- as an aid to exports -- China abetted the imbalances it now criticizes.
The Chinese denounce American profligacy after promoting it and profiting from it. Low prices for imported goods (shoes, computers, TVs) encouraged overconsumption. From 2000 to 2008, the U.S. trade deficit with China ballooned from $84 billion to $266 billion. China's foreign exchange reserves are now an astounding $2 trillion.
It's not just that exchange rates were (and are) misaligned. American economists have argued that a flood tide of Chinese money, earned from those bulging trade surpluses, depressed interest rates on U.S. Treasury securities and sent investors searching for higher yields elsewhere. That expanded the demand for riskier securities, including subprime mortgages, and pumped up the housing bubble. So China's policies contributed to the original financial crisis, though they were not the only cause.
For decades, dollars have lubricated global prosperity. They're used to price major commodities -- oil, wheat, copper -- and to conduct most trade. Countries such as Thailand and South Korea use dollars for more than 80 percent of their exports. The dollar also serves as the major currency for cross-border investments by governments and the private sector. Indeed, governments hold almost two-thirds of their $6.7 trillion in foreign exchange reserves in dollars.
But overreliance on the dollar can also backfire, as it now has. It is not just that countries have suffered declines in exports to a slumping U.S. economy. They've also lost dollar loans needed to finance trade with third countries. "When the crisis hit, U.S. banks cut back on dollar credit lines to foreign borrowers," says David Hu of the International Investment Group, an investment fund specializing in trade finance. The extra loans endorsed at last week's summit aim to offset these losses.
Given the dollar's drawbacks, why not switch to something else, as Zhou suggests? The trouble, as even he concedes, is that there's no obvious replacement. The attraction of an international currency depends on its presumed stability, what it will buy and how easy it is to invest. The euro (27 percent of government reserves) and the yen (3 percent) don't yet rival the dollar. As for China, it hasn't made its own currency (the renminbi, or RMB) automatically convertible for Chinese investments.
We're stuck with the dollar standard for a while. To work, it requires that countries with huge trade surpluses reduce the export-led growth that fed the system's instabilities. The Chinese increasingly recognize this. "They're very aware of the need to promote consumer spending," says economist Pieter Bottelier of Johns Hopkins University. In November, China announced a 4 trillion RMB ($586 billion) "stimulus." In addition, says Bottelier, the government is improving health and pension benefits to dampen households' need for high savings.
But China also has a default position: promoting exports. It has increased export rebates; engaged in currency "swaps" with trading partners (the latest: $10 billion with Argentina) to stimulate demand for Chinese goods; and stopped the RMB's slow appreciation. China seems comfortable advancing its economy at other countries' expense. Zhou's pronouncement provides a political rationale for predatory behavior: If we're innocent victims of U.S. economic mismanagement, then we're entitled to do whatever is necessary to insulate ourselves from the fallout. Down this path lies growing mistrust.
The larger point is that the world economy is suspended between the lofty rhetoric of last week's summit and the gritty realities of national politics. Protectionism is rising. A World Bank study found that 17 countries in the G-20 have recently adopted discriminatory policies. Though still modest, they "open the door for a lot of other opportunistic measures," says Gary Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute. And the deeper the recession, the greater the danger.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040501724_pf.html

Lawan Newmont, Pemerintah RI Menang

2009-03-31T21:22:00.001-07:00

Kompas, Rabu, 1 April 2009 | 09:17 WIB

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com- Pemerintah berada di atas angin. Kemarin, Majelis Hakim Arbitrase Internasional di Jenewa, Swiss, memenangkan Pemerintah Indonesia dalam sengketa penjualan atau divestasi saham perusahaan tambang PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara (Newmont).

Arbitrase Internasional mengabulkan satu dari dua gugatan Pemerintah terhadap Newmont yang diajukan Juni 2008. Gugatan yang ditolak majelis hakim adalah permintaan Pemerintah menghentikan kontrak karya Newmont.

Majelis hakim memutuskan, Newmont harus melepas 17 persen sahamnya dalam waktu 180 hari sejak putusan keluar, kemarin (31/3). Persentase itu adalah batas kewajiban Newmont yang belum terlaksana sejak 2006 (3 persen), 2007 (7 persen), dan 2008 (7 persen). Sesuai kontrak dengan pemerintah RI, Newmont harus menjual saham secara bertahap hingga mencapai 51 persen pada 2010.

Newmont harus melepas 17 persen saham itu pada Pemerintah Indonesia atau pihak yang ditunjuk Pemerintah. "Saham itu harus bebas gadai," kata Jaksa Pengacara Negara, Joseph Suwardi Sabda.

Sekadar catatan, saat ini Newmont telah menjaminkan sahamnya untuk meminjam dana dari perbankan. Jika Newmont tidak berhasil melaksanakan putusan ini, Pemerintah berhak mencabut kontrak karya Newmont.

Simon Felix Sembiring, mantan Direktur Jenderal Mineral, Batubara, dan Panas Bumi, yang kini menjadi Staf Khusus Menteri Energi Sumber Daya Mineral (ESDM), mengaku, saat ini Pemerintah tak hanya dalam posisi menunggu. "Tapi kami juga punya wewenang menagih karena punya kekuatan hukum tetap," katanya.

Setelah putusan arbitrase itu keluar, Newmont juga mempunyai kewajiban membayar biaya yang dikeluarkan Pemerintah untuk proses pengadilan sebesar 1,8 juta dollar AS.

Tapi, perjalanan kasus ini masih akan panjang. Menurut Kantor berita Reuters, Newmont malah sudah menjual 7 persen saham senilai 427 juta dollar AS kepada PT Pukuafu Indah. Perusahaan milik Yusuf Merukh ini adalah mitra lokal yang sudah menguasai 20 persen saham Newmont.(Gentur Putro Jati/Kontan)

http://bisniskeuangan.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/04/01/09171670/lawan.newmont.pemerintah.ri.menang

Pemulihan Terjadi pada 2010 dengan Syarat

2009-03-24T08:25:00.000-07:00

KRISIS EKONOMI GLOBAL

Kompas, Selasa, 24 Maret 2009 | 05:49 WIB

Geneva, Senin - Perekonomian terus memburuk. Organisasi Buruh Internasional meramalkan pada akhir 2009 akan ada 50 juta penganggur baru. Namun, pemulihan ekonomi bisa terjadi pada 2010 dengan syarat.

”Semua kebijakan harus diimplementasikan,” kata Direktur Pelaksana Dana Moneter Internasional (IMF) Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Senin (23/3) di Geneva, Swiss, dalam pertemuan Organisasi Buruh Internasional (ILO).

Krisis global terjadi karena kredit macet perbankan global di Amerika Serikat senilai 2 triliun dollar AS. Penipuan oleh Wall Street, julukan bursa saham AS, menambah persoalan, seperti yang dilakukan Bernard Madoff, pelaku penggelapan lebih dari 60 miliar dollar AS nilai nominal investasi milik sejumlah lembaga dan perorangan.

Tindakan gegabah dan spekulatif eksekutif itu, sebagaimana dituliskan Paul Krugman di New York Times edisi 22 Maret, turut membangkrutkan lembaga keuangan. ”Krisis terjadi karena disfungsi sistem keuangan,” tulis Krugman.

Hindari cara konvensional

Penelitian Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia (WTO) dan IMF menyebutkan, krisis yang dipicu kehancuran sektor keuangan secara empiris merusak mata rantai perekonomian. Kehancuran sektor ini membuat transaksi kacau dan merembet cepat ke semua sektor.

Strauss-Kahn meminta bank-bank sentral dan pemerintah menghindari pola konvensional dengan mengguyur uang begitu saja ke pasar. Sejak 2008, sejumlah negara maju mengguyur uang ke pasar. Sebagaimana dikatakan Krugman, disfungsi sistem keuangan tak akan mampu memutarkan uang-uang itu ke sektor perekonomian.

Sejauh ini, sejumlah pemerintah sudah meluncurkan dana stimulus ekonomi, menyuntikkan dana-dana ke perbankan. Hal ini terus dilakukan dan menjadi tindakan favorit AS. Namun, langkah itu tak mencegah ekonomi menuju krisis lebih dalam.

Uni Eropa memilih penyehatan perbankan, yang kemudian mulai dilakukan AS. Seiring dengan hal itu, para eksekutif perbankan Eropa, Asia, dan AS bertemu di London, Selasa ini. Pembahasan mereka adalah bagaimana menegakkan etika dan perilaku sistem keuangan. Bahasan lain pertemuan yang dihadiri Menteri Keuangan Inggris Alistair Darling itu adalah suntikan modal bank.

Krugman mengatakan, karena kekacauan perbankan lebih parah daripada yang terjadi pada dekade 1990-an, waktu yang diperlukan untuk sebuah solusi akan lebih lama. Hal itu bergantung pada sejauh mana Pemerintah AS melihat bahwa masalah ada pada disfungsi sektor keuangan. ”Namun, cara-cara yang dilakukan Presiden Barack Obama tetap saja sama dengan pendahulunya, George W Bush,” kata Krugman yang menegaskan agar fokus penyelesaian kebangkrutan perbankan diutamakan.(REUTERS/AP/AFP/MON)

More Companies At Risk of Failing

2009-03-12T04:47:00.000-07:00

U.S.News & World Report

Tuesday March 10, 12:46 pm ET
By Rick Newman

Everybody hopes the economy bottoms out and starts to improve tomorrow. Or sooner. But there are few signs of an imminent recovery. One obvious indicator is the health of big companies - you know, the ones that have been announcing all those four- and five-digits layoffs recently. And the outlook for them seems to be getting worse, not better.

Moody's, the ratings agency, recently published a list of "bottom rung" companies most likely to default on their debt. The criteria are technical, but the upshot is that a lot of companies are in deep trouble - and the list is getting longer, not shorter. Moody's predicts that the default rate on corporate bonds this year will be three times higher than in 2008, and 15 times higher than in 2007. Defaults are often the last step before a bankruptcy filing. And bankrupt companies, obviously, don't usually hire people. They dramatically shed costs and workers and sometimes liquidate completely, firing everybody.

So the Moody's findings help explain why most economists expect the unemployment rate, now 8.1 percent, to rise as high as 9 or 10 percent before it starts to drift back down. And right now, real and perceived fears about job security are the main force driving a contraction in consumer spending, and the economy as a whole. Here's what the bottom-rung report tells us about the next several months:

There will be a lot more bankruptcies. Moody's places 283 companies on its bottom-rung list, up from 157 a year ago. Since the quarterly list was last updated, 73 additional companies have fallen to the bottom rung. Twenty-four companies made their way off the list - but mostly because they defaulted on their debts. Only one company, Landry's Restaurants, got off the list because its circumstances improved.

Companies exposed to consumer spending have it toughest. The industries most represented on the list are media, automotive, retail and manufacturing. Companies in the most acute danger are those with reduced cash flow and a high debt load. A lot of big, well-known companies are in danger. On the list: Advanced Micro Devices; AirTran; AMR (parent of American Airlines); Chrysler; Duane Reade; Eastman-Kodak; Ford; General Motors; JetBlue; Krispy Kreme; Palm; R.H. Donnelly; Reader's Digest Association; Rite-Aid; UAL (parent of United Airlines); Unisys; and US Airways.

Many of the other firms on the list are second- or third-tier suppliers to automakers, airlines, and other troubled firms. Being on the list doesn't mean a firm is destined for bankruptcy. But it does mean the company faces severe constraints in terms of raising new capital, making new investments, and hiring. Instead of expanding, it may be far more inclined to sell assets, streamline or close divisions, and lay people off to cut costs and raise cash.

America's malls are going to end up looking a lot different. The retail sector is obviously getting hammered, with chains like Circuit City and Linens 'n Things already out of business. Many other retail chains are in trouble. Also on the bottom-rung list: Barney's; BCBG Maz Azria; Blockbuster; Brookstone; Claire's Stores; Eddie Bauer; Finlay Fine Jewelry; Harry & David; Loehmann's; Michael's Stores; Oriental Trading Co.; and Sbarro. Again, this doesn't mean the company is doomed. But many of these firms will restructure, close outlets, shrink, and find ways to transform themselves. So if you ever go back to the mall, and your favorite shop has disappeared, you'll know why.

The U.S. Hegemony ends, the era of global multipolarity enters

2009-02-25T16:20:00.000-08:00

08:38, February 24, 2009

By Li Hongmei People's Daily Online

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently published two graphics which struck people as odd by the stark juxtaposition: In 2003, GDP in the U.S accounted for 32 percent of the world total, while GDP of the emerging economies put together took up only 25 percent. In 2008, however, things just reversed with 25 percent for the U.S. and 32 percent going to the emerging economies. The two graphs show GDP as a percentage of total world output. However, what deserves notice is that the dramatic reversal could take place in just five years, and how much more will it change in the next five or the next ten years?

It is evident that the upshot of the shifting economic power signals a swift reduction of U.S. strength as a unipolar power. 'At best, America's unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s, but that was also a decade adrift…So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing—and losing—in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world's other superpowers: the European Union and China,' citing an article in Saturday's New York Times Magazine titled 'Waving Goodbye to Hegemony' by Parag Khanna.

In the post-Cold War period and with the decomposition of the former Soviet Union, the world scenario was generally subject to the U.S influence. And especially in the 1990s, it seemed conceivable and probable that the international power structure would be ended in the U.S. predominance in the political, economic and cultural systems, or simply and bluntly put, the U.S. would be 'King of the hill.' It would be that case if the U.S. were not hit by the '9.11' terrorist attack.

The U.S. used to rally the international support by launching a severe clampdown upon terror and acting as the global rescuer to keep the world free from the terrorist havoc. But quite soon, this noble campaign against terrorism, initiated by the U.S. Neo-Conservative elites, was interpreted by the international community as a camouflage used by the U.S. to hide its intention to regain monopoly over the entire globe. In 2008, nevertheless, the U.S hegemony was pushed onto the brink of collapse, as a result of its inherent structural contradictions, which proved well-rooted in the American society and far from conciliatory. A visible sign of the U.S. strength decline turned out to be the decline of its monolithic economic clout over the globe.

The typically American liberal capitalist financial system, featuring the loopholes of effective monitoring and feeding greed and exploitation, sparked a swirl of Domino Effects last year and quickly sent the whole economy into plunging. The worst ever economic downturn since the Great Depression also helped the first African-American president Barack Obama take power in a backdrop that Americans are so dearly longing for a radical change.

With the breakdown of the U.S.--dominated international power structure, the world attention would be focused on such an unavoidable question: Does the decline of U.S. geopolitical hegemony make multilateral global governance more likely? Perhaps it is still too early to rush any conclusion, but at least one thing is certain: the U.S. strength is declining at a speed so fantastic that it is far beyond anticipation. The U.S. is no longer 'King of the hill,' as a new phase of multipolar world power structure will come into being in 2009, and the international order will be correspondingly reshuffled. Albeit, for now, the new international power structure is still indiscernible—

In the Middle East, peace talks between Palestine and Israel have yet to see any fruit, and maybe not in prospect; Iran is rising as a regional power; Latin America is stepping up its efforts to break away from the U.S. orbit; the European Union cannot afford its increasing expansion; Leading players on the European Continent such as Britain, Germany and France are battling their own economic downtrend; and Russia also faces a tough job in reducing its heavy reliance on gas exports and building the modern manufacturing industry of its own.

China has grown to be a new heavyweight player and stepped into the limelight on the world stage. And its role in salvaging the plummeting world economy from hitting bottom looms large and active, as the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during her just wrapped-up Asian tour, 'the U.S. appreciates the continued Chinese confidence in the U.S treasuries.' If the Cold War was 'a tug of war' between East and West, and a showcase of hard power, what we have today, for the first time in history, is a global, multicivilizational and multipolar competition, and a display of smart power. To be the winner, one has to seek more cooperation rather than confrontation.

http://english.people.com.cn/90002/96417/6599374.html#

Copyright by People's Daily Online, All Rights Reserved

Obama Signs $787 Billion Economic Stimulus Bill

2009-02-17T13:21:00.000-08:00

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 17, 2009; 3:34 PM

President Obama today signed into law a $787 billion economic stimulus plan that he said begins "the essential work of keeping the American dream alive in our time."

In a speech and signing ceremony in Denver, Obama said the new law is aimed at creating millions of jobs and halting the U.S. economy's downward spiral.

Obama signed the massive, nearly 1,100-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, a setting intended to underscore the new law's role in creating clean-energy jobs. Before the signing, the president toured a solar panel installation on the museum's roof.

From Colorado, Obama is scheduled to fly to Arizona, where he plans to unveil an initiative tomorrow to help millions of homeowners avoid foreclosure.

The bill passed the House Friday by a vote of 246 to 183 and was approved that night in the Senate by 60 to 38. No House Republicans voted for the package. In the Senate, only three Republicans supported the bill, narrowly giving it a filibuster-proof majority and handing Obama a major legislative victory within his first month in office.

Obama said the legislation will save or create 3.5 million jobs over the next two years, pulling the nation back from the brink of what he has called a potential economic catastrophe. The measure aims to spur job growth through massive new investments in energy, transportation, education and health-care projects, while reviving social safety-net programs.

A little more than a third of the legislation's price tag comes from tax cuts. The rest of the costs, about $507 billion, are from spending.

In part, the new law is intended to make good on Obama's campaign pledges to upgrade the nation's aging roads, bridges and electricity grid; overhaul and computerize medical record-keeping and develop alternative energy resources to fight global warming and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

The bill includes nearly $50 billion for roads, bridges, transit and rail, including $8 billion for high-speed rail.

‘Grimmest’ Davos Ever Brings Anger, Finger-Pointing at Bankers

2009-02-01T17:04:00.000-08:00

By James Hertling and Simon Kennedy

Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) -- The theme of the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting was “Shaping the Post-Crisis World.” Unfortunately, the assembled executives, policy makers and do- gooders were stuck in the here and now.

The search for scapegoats and the worst economic prospects since World War II resulted in a gathering marked by fear, anger and bitterness, a far cry from the usual search for consensus.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stormed out of a panel discussion and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin hectored the U.S. as the font of the world’s economic woes. Almost everyone blamed the few bankers who showed up for the near-collapse of the financial system.

Attendees were “less reluctant to criticize, and sometimes very vocally criticize, the U.S. and its capitalist system because of the problems we’re having,” said David Rubenstein, co-founder of the Carlyle Group, who first came to Davos a decade ago. “Maybe that’s deserved, but it’s a big change.”

“Everyone I spoke to says it’s the grimmest Davos they’ve ever been to,” said Kenneth Rogoff, professor of economics at Harvard University and a World Economic Forum regular since 2002. “The mood has been very depressed. It’s a low-burn depression.”

Another big change was the virtual absence of Wall Street figures among the 2,500 delegates at the conference, which ended yesterday.

‘Stupid Things’

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon was the only U.S. banking chief who showed up. He made a concession to the mood of this year’s event by accepting some blame for the collapse that has led to more than $1 trillion of writedowns. He deflected the rest at regulators.

“God knows, some really stupid things were done by American banks and by American investment banks,” Dimon said. “To policy makers, I say: ‘Where were they?’”

That attitude was tough for some to swallow. At one session, a call for curbs on bankers’ bonuses was met with applause by sections of the audience.

“We should not trust these bankers,” said Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of the best-selling book “The Black Swan.” “Look at their track record. The only way to stop the process is for the government to own those banks.”

With the world’s elite nursing a collective hangover after the greatest era of global prosperity came to an end, there was enough bile to go around.

Erdogan’s Walkout

Erdogan stunned a packed house on Jan. 29 by walking out on a debate on last month’s war in the Gaza Strip. He claimed that the session’s moderator didn’t give him equal time with Israeli President Shimon Peres and vowed never to return to Davos. By the time he met the press an hour later, he promised to reconsider.

Anyone who thought Barack Obama’s election as president would temper criticism of U.S. policies would have been disappointed. Economists questioned his $819 billion stimulus plan, urged him to deliver another rescue package for banks and fretted about soaring national debt.

“People are looking for the solution but don’t yet have the question formulated,” Arif Naqvi, chief executive officer of Abraaj Capital Ltd., which manages $7.5 billion, said.

The need for action wasn’t in debate. Away from the slopes, U.S. stocks capped their worst ever January, the International Monetary Fund forecast the weakest global growth in 60 years and companies from Starbucks Corp. to Caterpillar Inc. cut jobs.

Deepening Recession

That led many attendees to predict they’ll still be in a funk when they return in 2010.

“We’re in a multi-multi year problem,” Howard Lutnick, chief executive officer of Cantor Fitzgerald LP., said. “We’ve weathered horrible times before. That’s what lies ahead of us now.”

Delegates also took turns bashing America’s policies and its role in the world.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Putin cited the U.S. for leading the world into recession in back-to-back speeches on the opening day.

“Just a year ago, American delegates speaking from this rostrum emphasized the U.S. economy’s fundamental stability and its cloudless prospects,” Putin said.

To cap it off, Putin dismissed a query from audience member Michael Dell, head of personal-computer maker Dell Inc., about what the technology community could do to assist Russia.

“We don’t need any help. We are not invalids,” Putin said.

Balanced Tone?

The spats gave this year’s conference a more balanced tone, said Bahraini banker Khalid Abdulla-Janahi, who remembers then- Vice President Dick Cheney “hammering the Russians, the Iranians and many others” during his 2004 visit.

“This time, it was a two-way street,” said the chairman of Ithmaar Bank BSC. “We heard Putin hammering the West and Erdogan standing up to Peres. That’s how it should be.”

Those who made it to the five-day Alpine retreat insisted that they weren’t wasting their time or their money --and they really didn’t mind the muted tone of the event’s party circuit.

“People are conscious about throwing parties or even smiling this year,” said Martin Sorrell, chief executive of WPP Group Plc. “It’s become a little too big, but it’s never been more relevant.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSrfvUUeboBM&refer=home#

To contact the reporter on the story: James Hertling in Davos at jhertling@bloomberg.net; Simon Kennedy in Davos at skennedy4@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: February 1, 2009 18:01 EST

“Be Nice to the Countries That Lend You Money”

2009-01-28T14:02:00.000-08:00

The Atlantic, December 2008

by James Fallows

In his first interview since the world financial crisis, Gao Xiqing, the man who oversees $200 billion of China’s $2 trillion in dollar holdings, explains why he’s betting against the dollar, praises American pragmatism, and wonders about enormous Wall Street paychecks. And he has a friendly piece of advice: “Be Nice to the Countries That Lend You Money”

Americans know that China has financed much of their nation’s public and private debt. During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama and John McCain generally agreed on the peril of borrowing so heavily from this one foreign source. For instance, in their final debate, McCain warned about the “$10 trillion debt we’re giving to our kids, a half a trillion dollars we owe China,” and Obama said, “Nothing is more important than us no longer borrowing $700billion or more from China and sending it to Saudi Arabia.” Their numbers on the debt differed, and both were way low. One year ago, when I wrote about China’s U.S. dollar holdings, the article was called “The $1.4 trillion Question.” When Barack Obama takes office, the figure will be well over $2 trillion.

During the late stages of this year’s campaign, I had several chances to talk with the man who oversees many of China’s American holdings. He is Gao Xiqing, president of the China Investment Corporation, which manages “only” about $200billion of the country’s foreign assets but makes most of the high-visibility investments, like buying stakes in Blackstone and Morgan Stanley, as opposed to just holding Treasury notes.

Gao, whom I mentioned in my article, would fit no American’s preexisting idea of a Communist Chinese official. He speaks accented but fully colloquial and very high-speed English. He has a law degree from Duke, which he earned in the 1980s after working as a lawyer and professor in China, and he was an associate in Richard Nixon’s former Wall Street law firm. His office, in one of the more tasteful new glass-walled high-rises in Beijing, itself seems less Chinese than internationally “fusion”-minded in its aesthetic and furnishings. Bonsai trees in large pots, elegant Japanese-looking arrangements of individual smooth stones on display shelves, Chinese and Western financial textbooks behind the desk, with a photo of Martin Luther King Jr. perched among the books. Two very large, very thin desktop monitors read out financial data from around the world. As we spoke, Western classical music played softly from a good sound system.

Gao dressed and acted like a Silicon Valley moneyman rather than one from Wall Street—open-necked tattersall shirt, muted plaid jacket, dark slacks, scuffed walking shoes. Rimless glasses. His father was a Red Army officer who was on the Long March with Mao. As a teenager during the Cultural Revolution, Gao worked on a railroad-building gang and in an ammunition factory. He is 55, fit-looking, with crew-cut hair and a jokey demeanor rather than an air of sternness.

His comments below are from our one on-the-record discussion, two weeks before the U.S. elections. As I transcribed his words, I realized that many will look more astringent on the page than they sounded when coming from him. In person, he seemed to be relying on shared experience in the United States—that is, his and mine—to entitle him to criticize the country the way its own people might. The conversation was entirely in English. Because Gao’s answers tended to be long, I am not presenting them in straight Q&A form but instead grouping his comments about his main recurring themes.

Does America wonder who its new Chinese banking overlords might be? This is what one of the very most influential of them had to say about the world financial crisis, what is wrong with Wall Street, whether one still-poor country with tremendous internal needs could continue subsidizing a still-rich one, and how he thought America could adjust to its “realistic” place in the world. My point for the moment is to convey what it is like to hear from such a man, rather than to expand upon, challenge, or agree with his stated views.

.....

About the financial crisis of 2008, which eliminated hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of savings that the Chinese government had extracted from its people, through deliberately suppressed consumption levels:

We are not quite at the bottom yet. Because we don’t really know what’s going to happen next. Everyone is saying, “Oh, look, the dollar is getting stronger!” [As it was when we spoke.] I say, that’s really temporary. It’s simply because a lot of people need to cash in, they need U.S. dollars in order to pay back their creditors. But after a short while, the dollar may be going down again. I’d like to bet on that!

The overall financial situation in the U.S. is changing, and that’s what we don’t know about. It’s going to be changed fundamentally in many ways.

Think about the way we’ve been living the past 30 years. Thirty years ago, the leverage of the investment banks was like 4-to-1, 5-to-1. Today, it’s 30-to-1. This is not just a change of numbers. This is a change of fundamental thinking.

People, especially Americans, started believing that they can live on other people’s money. And more and more so. First other people’s money in your own country. And then the savings rate comes down, and you start living on other people’s money from outside. At first it was the Japanese. Now the Chinese and the Middle Easterners.

We—the Chinese, the Middle Easterners, the Japanese—we can see this too. Okay, we’d love to support you guys—if it’s sustainable. But if it’s not, why should we be doing this? After we are gone, you cannot just go to the moon to get more money. So, forget it. Let’s change the way of living. [By which he meant: less debt, lower rewards for financial wizardry, more attention to the “real economy,” etc.]

.....

About stock market derivatives and their role as source of evil:

If you look at every one of these [derivative] products, they make sense. But in aggregate, they are bullshit. They are crap. They serve to cheat people.

I was predicting this many years ago. In 1999 or 2000, I gave a talk to the State Council [China’s main ruling body], with Premier Zhu Rongji. They wanted me to explain about capital markets and how they worked. These were all ministers and mostly not from a financial background. So I wondered, How do I explain derivatives?, and I used the model of mirrors.

First of all, you have this book to sell. [He picks up a leather-bound book.] This is worth something, because of all the labor and so on you put in it. But then someone says, “I don’t have to sell the book itself! I have a mirror, and I can sell the mirror image of the book!” Okay. That’s a stock certificate. And then someone else says, “I have another mirror—I can sell a mirror image of that mirror.” Derivatives. That’s fine too, for a while. Then you have 10,000 mirrors, and the image is almost perfect. People start to believe that these mirrors are almost the real thing. But at some point, the image is interrupted. And all the rest will go.

When I told the State Council about the mirrors, they all started laughing. “How can you sell a mirror image! Won’t there be distortion?” But this is what happened with the American economy, and it will be a long and painful process to come down.

I think we should do an overhaul and say, “Let’s get rid of 90 percent of the derivatives.” Of course, that’s going to be very unpopular, because many people will lose jobs.

.....

About Wall Street jobs, wealth, and the cultural distortion of America:

I have to say it: you have to do something about pay in the financial system. People in this field have way too much money. And this is not right.

When I graduated from Duke [in 1986], as a first-year lawyer, I got $60,000. I thought it was astronomical! I was making somewhere a bit more than $80,000 when I came back to China in 1988. And that first month’s salary I got in China, on a little slip of paper, was 59 yuan. A few dollars! With a few yuan deducted for my rent and my water bill. I laughed when I saw it: 59 yuan!

The thing is, we are working as hard as, if not harder than, those people. And we’re not stupid. Today those people fresh out of law school would get $130,000, or $150,000. It doesn’t sound right.

Individually, everyone needs to be compensated. But collectively, this directs the resources of the country. It distorts the talents of the country. The best and brightest minds go to lawyering, go to M.B.A.s. And that affects our country, too! Many of the brightest youngsters come to me and say, “Okay, I want to go to the U.S. and get into business school, or law school.” I say, “Why? Why not science and engineering?” They say, “Look at some of my primary-school classmates. Their IQ is half of mine, but they’re in finance and now they’re making all this money.” So you have all these clever people going into financial engineering, where they come up with all these complicated products to sell to people.

.....

About the $700 billion U.S. financial-rescue plan enacted in October:

Finally, after months and months of struggling with your own ideology, with your own pride, your self-right-eousness … finally [the U.S. applied] one of the great gifts of Americans, which is that you’re pragmatic. Now our people are joking that we look at the U.S. and see “socialism with American characteristics.” [The Chinese term for its mainly capitalist market-opening of the last 30 years is “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”]

It is joking, and many people are saying: “No, Americans still believe in free capitalism and they think this is just a hiccup.” This is like our great leader Deng Xiaoping, who said that it doesn’t matter if the cat is white or black, as long as it catches the mouse. It doesn’t matter what we call this. It’s pragmatic.

.....

With so much of China’s money at stake, did U.S. officials consult the Chinese about the rescue plan?

Not directly. We were talking to people there, and they were hoping that we would be supportive by not pulling out our money. We know that by pulling out money, we’re not serving anyone’s good. Including ourselves. [This is the famous modern “balance of financial terror.” If Chinese officials started pulling assets out of the U.S. and touched off a run on the dollar, their vast remaining dollar holdings would plummet in value.] So we’re trying to help, at least by not aggravating the problem.

But I think at the end of the day, the American government needs to talk with people and say: “Why don’t we get together and think about this? If China has $2 trillion, Japan has almost $2 trillion, and Russia has some, and all the others, then—let’s throw away the ideological differences and think about what’s good for everyone.” We can get all the relevant people together and think up what people are calling a second Bretton Woods system, like the first Bretton Woods convention did.

.....

On what might make the Chinese government start taking its dollars out of America (I began the question by saying that China would hurt itself by pulling out dollar assets—at which he interjected, “in the short term”—and then asked about the long-term view):

Today when we look at all the markets, the U.S. still is probably the most viable, the most predictable. I was trained as a lawyer, and predictability is always very important for me.

We have a PR department, which collects all the comments about us, from Chinese newspapers and the Web. Every night, I try to pick a time when I’m in a relatively good mood to read it, because most of the comments are very critical of us. Recently we increased our holdings in Blackstone a little bit. Now we’re increasing a little bit our holdings in Morgan Stanley, so as not to be diluted by the Japanese. People here hate it. They come out and say, “Why the hell are you trying to save those people? You are the representative of the poor people eating porridge, and you’re saving people eating shark fins!” It’s always that sort of thing.

.....

And how should Americans feel about the growing Chinese presence in their economy? Isn’t it natural for them to worry that China will keep increasing its stake in American debt and assets—or that China won’t, essentially cutting America off?

I can understand why Americans might feel that way. But, talking with my lawyer head once again, it’s not relevant to discuss how Americans “should” think. We should discuss how Americans might think.

This concern is not really about China itself. It could be any country. It could be Japan, or Germany. This generation of Americans is so used to your supremacy. Your being treated nicely by everyone. It hurts to think, Okay, now we have to be on equal footing to other people. “On equal footing” would necessarily mean that sometimes you have to stoop to appear to be humble to other people.

And you can’t think as a soldier. You put yourself at the enemy end of everyone. I grew up during the Cultural Revolution, when people really treated other people like enemies. I grew up in an environment where our friends, our relatives, people I called Uncle or Auntie, could turn around and put a nasty face to me as a small child. One time, Vladimir Lenin told Gorky, after reading Gorky’s autobiography, “Oh my god! You could have become a very nasty person!” Those are exactly the words one of my dear professors told me after hearing what I went through.

But over the years, I believe I learned to be humble. To treat other people nicely. I learned that, from a social point of view, no matter how lowly statured a person you are talking to, as a person, they are the same human being as you are. You have to respect them. You have to apologize if you inadvertently hurt them. And often you have to go out of your way to be nice to them, because they will not like you simply because of the difference in social structure.

Americans are not sensitive in that regard. I mean, as a whole. The simple truth today is that your economy is built on the global economy. And it’s built on the support, the gratuitous support, of a lot of countries. So why don’t you come over and … I won’t say kowtow [with a laugh], but at least, be nice to the countries that lend you money.

Talk to the Chinese! Talk to the Middle Easterners! And pull your troops back! Take the troops back, demobilize many of the troops, so that you can save some money rather than spending $2 billion every day on them. And then tell your people that you need to save, and come out with a long-term, sustainable financial policy.

.....

Although Gao has frequently mentioned Chairman Mao’s maxim—“Go with the Republicans. They’re predictable!”—he obviously was hoping for a “change” agenda under the Democrats:

The current conditions can’t go on. It is time for the new government, under Obama or even McCain, to really tell people: “Look, this is wartime, this is about the survival of our nation. It’s not about our supremacy in the world. Let’s not even talk about that any more. Let’s get down to the very basics of our livelihood.”

I have great admiration of American people. Creative, hard-working, trusting, and freedom-loving. But you have to have someone to tell you the truth. And then, start realizing it. And if you do it, just like what you did in the Second World War, then you’ll be great again!

If that happens, then of course—American power would still be there for at least as long as I am living. But many people are betting on the other side.
The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200812/fallows-chinese-banker
SUBSCRIBE TO THE ATLANTIC TODAY!
Take advantage of our great rate to subscribe to a year of The Atlantic Monthly.
Go to the following Web address to sign up today:

http://www.theatlantic.com/subscribe12
All material copyright The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.

Big Companies Shed Jobs

2009-01-26T18:01:00.000-08:00

Business Week, January 26, 2009,

On a single day, tens of thousands of jobs are eliminated at Caterpillar, Sprint Nextel, Pfizer, Home Depot, and General Motors

By BusinessWeek Staff and Wire Reports

The beginning of the workweek brought another round of bad news for U.S. workers, as several major companies announced layoffs totaling in the tens of thousands. Adding to the discouragement, labor market experts said that more layoffs are likely in the near term.

"We are very early in the cycle," said Peter Morici, a professor at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. "We are going to see the fury of the Old Testament for what we have done to the economy."

Among the cuts announced on Jan. 26:

• Caterpillar (CAT), the world's largest maker of mining and construction equipment, announced 5,000 new layoffs on top of several earlier actions. The latest cuts of support and management employees will be made globally by the end of March. The company says it is in the process of shedding about 20,000 jobs. The company employs 112,000 worldwide.

• Wireless phone carrier Sprint Nextel (S) said it is eliminating about 8,000 positions in the first quarter as it seeks to cut annual costs by $1.2 billion. The layoffs will trim about 14% of Sprint Nextel's 56,000 employees. The company said it is also suspending its 401(k) match for the year, extending a freeze on salary increases, and suspending a tuition reimbursement program.

• Pharmaceutical company Pfizer (PFE), which announced a deal to buy rival drugmaker Wyeth (WYE) for $68 billion, said it would cut 8,000 jobs. The cuts will begin in the first quarter and are to be complete by 2011, according to company spokesman Ray Kerins. Cuts will include most departments, from administration and sales to manufacturing and research.

• Home improvement retailer Home Depot (HD) said it was shutting down four small units—Expo Design Centers, YardBIRDS, Design Centers, and HD Bath, a bath remodeling business—trimming about 7,000 jobs in the process. The cuts represent about 2% of Home Depot's total workforce.

• General Motors (GM) said it will cut 2,000 jobs at plants in Michigan and Ohio and will halt production for several weeks at nine plants over the next six months because of slow sales. The company said the layoffs are part of its efforts to "align production with market demand."

The U.S. economy lost 2.6 million jobs in 2008, and the new year has brought no letup in the pink slips. The recent spate of layoffs represent "structural, not cyclical changes to the economy," said Maryland's Morici. "They're the hallmark of depression."

Morici said we've so far only seen a sliver of the job losses to come and that unemployment will reach 9% by the end of the year—with "no end in sight."

The gloom was echoed by the National Association for Business Economics. In a report issued on Monday, the organization said job losses accelerated in the fourth quarter, with about 44% of reporting companies cutting payrolls while only 14% added workers. The group said business conditions were the worst since it began its survey in 1982.

The group said that 39% of companies plan to reduce payrolls over the next six months, while 17% plan to increase employment. The only increase in jobs came in the services sector.

Korporasi Global Masih Terus Bertumbangan

2009-01-26T17:29:00.000-08:00

Kompas
Selasa, 27 Januari 2009 | 01:05 WIB

PARIS, Senin - Bank terkemuka di Eropa, BNP Paribas SA, menyatakan, kemungkinan akan membukukan kerugian sebesar 1,4 miliar euro pada kuartal keempat 2008. Kerugian yang cukup besar ini terjadi setelah terjadi gejolak di pasar sehingga menyebabkan BNP Paribas harus melakukan penghapusbukuan sebagian aset bermasalah dan kehilangan unit bank investasi.

Perusahaan produsen lampu terbesar di dunia, Royal Philips Electronics NV, juga melaporkan kerugian kuartal keempat sebesar 1,47 miliar euro atau 1,9 miliar dollar AS. Philips merencanakan pemangkasan tenaga kerja hingga 6.000 orang.

Kedua perusahaan terkemuka itu terkena dampak dari penurunan aktivitas perekonomian global. Semakin banyak orang yang tidak lagi membeli produk-produk jasa keuangan ataupun produk manufaktur, seperti bola lampu yang dihasilkan Philips.

BNP Paribas yang merupakan bank terbesar di Perancis menyatakan, unit korporasi dan bank investasi menargetkan pembukuan kerugian sebelum pajak sebesar 2 miliar euro karena tingginya risiko di pasar modal. BNP Paribas juga melakukan penghapusbukuan aset sebesar 400 juta euro pada kuartal keempat setelah kehancuran pasar modal.

Untuk kinerja keuangan selama satu tahun penuh, BPN Paribas menyatakan masih memegang keuntungan bersih sebesar 3 miliar euro. Kentungan tersebut karena kinerja pada unit perbankan ritel dan aset manajemen.

Saham BNP Paribas naik 7,1 persen menjadi 22,9 euro pada perdagangan sesi pagi di Paris. ”Pada periode pasar yang sedang bergejolak demikian pesat, saya rasa transparansi sangat diperlukan, yaitu memberitahukan kepada pasar bagaimana kinerja kami untuk kuartal keempat dan sepanjang tahun 2008,” ujar CEO BNP Paribas Baudouin Prot. Pengumuman resmi kinerja BNP Paribas akan dikeluarkan pada 19 Februari.

PHK Philips

Pengurangan pegawai di Philips yang juga merupakan produsen peralatan kesehatan dan peralatan elektronik pada kuartal keempat sudah mencapai 7.000 orang. Saat ini Philips memiliki 121.000 pegawai di seluruh dunia.

Perusahaan yang bermarkas di Amsterdam itu juga menyatakan bahwa penjualan turun hingga 9,7 persen menjadi 7,63 miliar euro.

”Perkembangan yang memburuk dari laporan kuartalan kami mencerminkan penurunan perekonomian yang semakin cepat pada akhir tahun 2008,” ujar Chief Executive Gerard Kleisterlee dalam sebuah pernyataannya.

Laba operasi juga turun di kebanyakan divisi utama, yaitu produk konsumen, sehingga secara keseluruhan hanya mencapai 22 juta euro dari 427 juta euro. Penyebabnya antara lain anjloknya penjualan televisi.

Laba operasi dari divisi lampu juga turun menjadi 143 juta euro daripada tahun sebelumnya, 170 juta euro. Pasar di AS diperkirakan masih melemah hingga tahun depan. (AP/AFP/joe)

joe

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/01/27/01053182/korporasi.global.masih.terus.bertumbangan

The global crisis of capitalism and its impact

2009-01-11T23:51:00.000-08:00

Dani Nabudere (2008-12-11)

The present financial crisis afflicting the global economy should not be seen from the narrow focus of the credit crunch and its relationship to the subprime mortgage crisis in the Western countries, especially the US. The crisis goes to the very foundations of the global capitalist system and it should be analysed from that angle. What is at the core of the crisis is the over-extension of credit on a narrow material production base. This is in a situation in which money has become increasingly detached from its material base of a money commodity that can measure its value such as gold.

The expansion of the world economy from 1945 onwards was based on the US providing some kind of link between money and the gold standard, which the US tried to maintain until its collapse in the 1970s. Increasingly the dollar became the global currency but without a backing to its currency from a money commodity. The over-expansion of credit that has taken place since then, especially with the globalisation of the world economy, has meant that a lot of paper money and monetary instruments in the form of derivatives and ‘future options’ have lost any relationship to the ‘fundamentals’ in the material production of the world economy.

That is why there has been a growing outcry that the growth of ‘speculative capital’ has over-run the growth of ‘productive capital’ with large amounts of money and credit circulating without the backing of any production at all. That is also why the relationship between the ‘fundamentals’ in the economy and the new credit instruments created on a daily basis in many cases from speculative ‘short-selling’ have become narrower and narrower over time. This is also why the present financial crisis is also a reflection of the energy and food crisis, because oil and food products such as wheat, rice and other commodities have been subjected to speculative trading to back up paper money many years in the future. The British Prime Minister, among the world leaders, is the only one who has seen this connection when he brought it up in the World Bank meeting a few months ago and also when he met the US Democratic Party Presidential candidate,
Barrack Obama, when he visited Europe recently.

Thus the amount of credit floating around the world is ‘loose money’ completely run-wild, which claims a relationship with a narrow production base. This is in a situation when the US is increasingly unable to repay debts it has accumulated in its Treasury Bonds and Bills, in which the rest of the world have placed their reserves. Most African countries have millions of dollars in these US Treasury bills, which are held as the countries’ ‘reserves.’ China, India and Japan have trillions deposited in these ‘T’ bills and bonds This means that should the world economy collapse under pressure of ‘loose money’ wanting to be given a value (which they do not have) so that the holders of that ‘money’ can preserve their wealth, those holdings in US Treasury bills (or US debt to the rest of the world) will be lost forcing many weak economies to collapse along with it.

This is why it is wrong to conclude, like many people do that capitalism has the capacity, as it has shown over the years, to always reinvent itself by growing a new skin to resist the pangs of crisis inflicted on it by its own greed. That is a false conclusion. US and British capitalism are being put under pressure to stay a float only by nationalising a number of banks and the corporations that can no longer sustain their operations because of shortage of ‘liquid cash.’ These corporations and banks demand that the state should bail them out. The state is being forced to bail these enterprises out on condition that they shall sell the bulk of their shares to the state. This means that these capitalist states are being forced to move in the direction of central planning and management of the economy. For lack of space, we cannot go into this matter in greater detail.

In short, what Karl Marx called ‘the financial oligarchy’ is demanding that the state should take over their burdens and maintain the ‘value’ of their valueless credit instruments while insisting that the poor workers and the middle classes shall take care of themselves. In other world, the oligarchy demand communism for themselves while relegating socialism and capitalism for the middle class and the working class and the other poor strata of society because socialism and capitalism are the only ways through which the middle class and the working poor can ‘compete’ among themselves for survival. Remember that Marx defined communism as: ‘to each according to his needs’ and socialism as: ‘to each according to his capacities.” Capitalism can now better be defined as: ‘to each according to his own devices,’ which is a paradigm fit for the working poor.

THE CREDIT CRUNCH AND THE FOOD CRISIS

The economic crisis has also revealed the way credit over-expansion has affected food prices throughout the world. In fact when the credit crunch struck the world and the food crisis was announced, the crisis was recognised as a global food crisis. That is why the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank immediately held a special session of the Boards of Governors of their institutions to develop policies to deal with this crisis when it became clear that the food crisis was likely to stay with us until 2015 at the very least.

Immediately following the meetings of these multilateral institutions, the World Food Organisation-FAO held an urgent Food Summit on June 3-5 in Rome, in which the Summit called for an immediate response by governments. After the World Bank meeting, the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, wrote a letter to the Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who was at the time the chair of the G8, in which he asked the group to act with speed to address the soaring food prices. What was significant was that Gordon also recognised that the financial market-based risk management instruments, including derivatives, had to be considered as contributing to the food price volatilities. What did Gordon Brown mean by this statement? The real problem underlying currency instability and commodity price volatilities is the fact that the dollar, which acts as a global reserve currency, is not backed by any solid money commodity such as gold or silver. These money
commodities were historically overwhelmed by the growth of capitalist wealth. As a result not all paper wealth that was held by economic actors could be changed into gold in periods of crisis when the demand for ‘real’ money became overwhelming. With the collapse of the gold standard in the US in the 1970s because of the outgrowth of Eurodollars, attempts were made to rely on other commodities such as platinum to back up the dollar, but this was a non-starter because the cost of storing platinum was too high to be borne by paper wealth holders. But financial instruments, especially future options and instruments called derivatives continued to grow in volume.

This is what led to the food commodities coming into the picture to back up future contracts and derivatives expressed in US dollars. The centre of the global commodity trade is the Chicago Board of Trade-CBOT. It is here that global trade in commodities is valued and undertaken together with other commodities markets. It is also here that all commodities, including food commodities, are ‘financialised’ in dollar financial instruments Wheat, oats, corn, rice and soybean are all agricultural products traded on various commodities exchanges, including the CBOT. Here the exchanges also trade the financial ‘products,’ as well as futures and options contracts on these and several derivative products such as bean oil. Coffee, cocoa, sugar, cotton and orange juice are all 'soft' commodities, many of which are traded on the CSCE (Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange). Interestingly, since 80% of the oranges grown in the U.S. are turned into frozen orange
juice concentrate, it's the juice that is traded as a commodity, not the fruit.

An article that appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail of 31st May 2008 argued that it was the deregulation of financial markets and the systematic exploitation of US regulatory loopholes that had led to the upsurge of speculative investments in food commodity markets, much of it by institutional investors such as the managers of pension funds. "These funds", wrote the authors, "have ploughed tens of billions of dollars into agricultural commodities as a way of diversifying their assets and improve returns for their investors.”

According to the authors, the amount of fund money invested in commodity indexes had climbed from just $13-billion in 2003 to a staggering $260-billion in March 2008, according to calculations based on regulatory filings. There were warnings that this amount could easily quadruple to $1-trillion, if pension fund managers allocated a greater portion of their portfolio to commodities, as some consultants suggested they were poised to do. Thus, it was the progressive loosening of regulatory requirements, which made possible the enormous influx of money, much of it fleeing the meltdown in the market for mortgage-backed securities and the wider fallout, including big leveraged buyouts in banks.

Because agricultural markets are small - relative to stock markets - the amount of cash pouring into these markets gives these funds substantial clout. The authors observed that these big institutional investors controlled enough wheat in futures instruments, which could supply the needs of American consumers for the next two years. They blamed the "demand shock" from these recent entrants to the commodities markets as the primary factor behind the sudden soaring of food prices. They noted that if no immediate action was taken, food and energy prices were bound to rise still further leading to the catastrophic economic effects on millions of already stressed U.S. consumers and the possible starvation of millions of the worlds poor.

For instance, the Ontario Teachers' Pension fund, which began with a modest investment in food commodities in 1997, had by 2008 invested some 3 billion dollars in this market. With rising investor activity and increasing demand, prices began to rise. Between 2000 and 2007, the price of wheat increased 147 per cent on the Chicago Board of Trade. Over the same period, corn increased by 79 per cent and soybeans by 72 per cent. As more funds moved in to invest, speculators began clamour for more flexibility with trading limits and since there were no controls, the food commodity prices kept on rising.

It has been estimated that for every one percent increase in the price of food, there is an additional 16 million people who go hungry. In its briefing paper for the World Food Summit, the FAO Secretariat devoted two whole paragraphs to the influence of financial markets in pushing upwards the cost of staple food commodities in its assessment of recent developments. However, it had nothing to say about the matter when it came to recommending "policy options" for dealing with the problem. This was not accidental, but a reflection of the positions of the States.

This is why it was correct to conclude, as we have done above, that for the financial oligarchy who wield power in the States, the demand is that the State must guarantee them ‘communism’ (which can assure them their needs) while for the producing and middle classes the attitude of the State is only to guarantee them the conditions for ’free competition’ for the little the financial oligarchy is able to leave aside for the ‘markets’ (to compete over according to their abilities and devices). Financial markets in the global capitalist system, as well as global inter-governmental organisations such as FAO, it seems, have no ‘policy options’ to attend to the needs of the starving masses. There always are, however, ‘options’ for ‘bailing out’ the financial oligarchy while the masses are left to the devices of ‘the markets.’

THE WAY OUT OF THE CRISIS FOR AFRICA

It is clear from the above that agricultural production has become a victim of late capitalist crisis. This is as it has been because from its birth capitalism had always profited from agriculture as an ‘old industry’ in which this ‘industry’ provided the raw materials for its expanded reproduction at low cost. Capitalist crisis has therefore contributed greatly to the exploitation of agricultural workers and ultimately to its collapse. It did so first, by plundering the European peasantry and converting them into paupers through the enclosure system by using the proceeds for its ‘primitive accumulation’ of capital as one of the sources of its birth.

In so doing, it turned the peasants into workers and in its imperialist phase turned to the colonies for agricultural raw materials where the colonial peasant producers were paid prices below subsistence subsidised by female and child free labour working on land. Only after decolonisation and the establishment of the European Common Market did Europe develop a common agricultural policy to avoid being starved in case of wars in the post-colonial States.

Secondly, with the increasing securitisation of commodities, in which the central banks relied on a variety of commodities to give value to paper debt instruments, capitalists fell to agriculture in the post-colonial States of Africa to save their currencies from collapse. This as we saw above is what led to the escalation in the prices of food products leading to their destruction as commodities. The collapse of the dollar and other ‘hard currencies’ has meant a doom for those agricultural food products as their prices begun to plummet with the collapsing currencies.

This is what the economists are calling a ‘recession.’ But nobody knows when the recession will end although many of them now agree that it is already on in all the developed capitalist countries. So those who believed that with high food prices the peasant producers would earn high incomes had better rethink their arithmetic because they need to revise their knowledge of how capitalism operates in its old age. African agricultural and food production based on exports to the markets of the developed countries can no longer be assured and so the African farmer has to find a way out of this mess as quickly as possible.

What we have said above must already alert us as to what we have to do to get out of the mess. First, we have to look at how we can survive in terms of food availability. For the first time, we have to wake up to the reality that African countries need a food security policy as a matter of urgency about which leaders can no longer dilly-dally. That means African countries have first to focus on the home market followed by the regional market and finally the global market. With the home market becoming the focus for our production, we can create regional currencies because in that case we shall have no alternative but to create them to serve the regional markets, but operating under completely new conditions and principles. But we cannot develop a food security based on food crops of which people have very little knowledge, especially since with the currency crisis; we shall not have sufficient dollars to buy foreign food products with in the short and
medium terms.

This means we have to rely more on indigenous food products as the basis of our food security, which we must quickly encourage the farmers to revive. Although many of our indigenous food crops were abandoned in favour of exotic products that could also be sold on the market, there is still a reservoir of knowledge about these crops in the rural communities. So reviving these crops would not be an uphill task if we have a policy that is driven with the same zeal as that of the current production for export. The African elites will have to content themselves with consuming indigenous crops since they can no longer depend on exotic foreign products.

Secondly, we have to consider the strategy of encouraging cooperative production because with the increasing population driven by poverty and the great fragmentation of land holding, it will not be possible to sustain families on the small farm-holdings. A cooperative policy also presupposes a sound credit policy that can enable farmers to borrow for their production and hence the need to hasten the creation of a regional currency that can inform the creation of new local credit systems drawing on the experiences of the ‘informal sector.’ We should learn what the people of Somaliland have done in this respect because they have managed to create a very strong local currency that is not pegged to any global currency.

The collapse of the global capitalist system will not mean the end of the world! On the contrary, it will release the bottled up energies of the people that have been suffocated by the collapsing capitalist system. We shall survive by burying the old system and creating a new one. Such a new system will have to be socialist-oriented since even the most developed capitalist countries have no alternative but to do so as we can already see with the whole sale nationalisation of banks throughout Europe and the US. Some countries such as Iceland have already gone bankrupt.

This means that even the political system has to change. The key to political rejuvenation will lie in the ‘deepening of democracy’ right from the family level, to the clan and to the traditional institutions level since the post-colonial state would have collapsed along with the dollar. New forms of political power will emerge at a local level unless new warlords try to occupy the political space. But the warlords are already doomed as the Somali situation already demonstrates. The local power structures will need a wider cooperative basis on the model of confederal or federal regional states and we should consider Southern, Eastern African or the Great Lakes region for such a partnership.

The development of local markets will need the backing of regional markets for wider exchange of commodities. Therefore, new forms of agricultural and industrial production will have to be tailored to local needs and tastes. Similarly, new local markets will emerge in other parts of the world calling for global exchanges of commodities with those consumers. Eventually a new global currency or currencies based on a basket of commodities will have to be created to facilitate these exchanges on a completely new basis not based on capitalist super-profits run by transnational corporations.

At a political level, we shall increasingly see the emergence of a global civil society along side the new global market. Hence, we can already envisage the emergence of a GLOCAL SOCIETY (a Global society based on local nationalities and global citizenship). Along side with these developments will eventually emerge a federated global State, which will be developed by the local powers. We can no longer return to the caves, we can only move forward to a new world. Yes, a New World is possible and it can now be said with certainty: A NEW WORLD IS INEVITABLE!

* Professor Dani W. Nabudere is the Executive Director of the Afrika Study Centre

* Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org/

Source: http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/52604

The social movements want a new development model

2009-01-10T15:40:00.001-08:00

[12/04/08] MST Informa #157: The social movements want a new development model

We of the MST along with the central unions, student organizations, peoples’ movements, and groups from civil society, are putting together a document with concerns around the country’s current social and economic picture and proposals to overcome the worldwide economic crisis. We demand that the country change the macroeconomic policy of neoliberalism and build a new model of national development, based on income distribution, job creation, and strengthening of the internal market. In the past week, we participated in a meeting with the federal government and took the opportunity to present this document, signed by more than 50 groups with proposals for our country in the face of this crisis.

Our participation in the meeting does not mean any type of support for any candidate. “We are concerned with the future of our country, that will not be resolved from election to election, but with a new rise of the mass movement to demand structural changes and a national project”, states Marina dos Santos, of the national MST leadership, who read the document during the meeting. Ministers Luiz Dulci (General Secretariat), Dilma Roussef (Chief of Staff) and Guido Mantega (Agriculture) were present.

LETTER FROM THE SOCIAL MOVEMENTS PRESENTED IN A MEETING WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
We compliment the Federal Government for taking the initiative to hear the social movements and union movements, the students, peoples’, pastoral, movements and the groups that are organizing our people to confront the serious crisis that we are already feeling – and everything leads us to believe will deepen in our economy, our society, and especially among the Brazilian people.

We want to take advantage of this opportunity to present our concrete proposals that the Federal Government should take to preserve, above all, the people’s interests and not just businesses and the profits of capital.

The set of these proposals is presented in the general spirit that we should confront the crisis by changing the macroeconomic policy of a neoliberal nature and start building a new model for national development, based on other parameters, above all on income distribution, job creation, and strengthening of the internal market.

Our basic concern is that our change should achieve concrete measures aimed at improving the living standards of our people, and ensure rights to free public education that is democratic and of high quality at every level, dignified housing, access to culture, and urban and agrarian reforms.

Unfortunately, the majority of our people have no access to these basic rights. We know that powerful interests of local capitalists, of transnational corporations, and above all of the financial system, concentrate wealth and more and more and prevent our people from enjoying the wealth that they produce.

We are already tired of so much capitalist domination and now we are watching the financial crises and the offensive by interests of the empire that controls the wealth of nature, minerals, waters, seeds, oil, energy and the result of our work.

Faced with this situation, we want to present to you some concrete proposals so that we can resolve, in fact, the people’s problems and prevent the transnational corporations and the banks from transferring the cost of the crisis to the people:

Proposals from the international groups:

1. As a response to the crisis we demand that the strengthening of the strategy of regional integration that is embodied in the mechanisms such as MERCOSUL, UNASUL and ALBA.

2. We support measures such as the substitution of the dollar for local currencies in commercial transactions, such as Brazil and Argentina recently did, and we suggest that this measure should be adopted by the countries of Latin America.

3. We demand the speediest possible consolidation of the Bank of the South, as an agent that promotes regional development and that helps the growth of the internal market among the countries of Latin America and as a mechanism for controlling our reserves, to prevent speculation by the banks, by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and by the interests of U.S. capital.

4. We affirm that the current economic and financial crisis is the responsibility of the central countries and of the organizations directed by them such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, and the IMF. We demand a new international order that respects the sovereignty of peoples and of nations.

5. We ask for your persistence and commitment for the immediate withdrawal of all the foreign forces from Haiti. No country of Latin America should have bases and a foreign military presence. We propose, in its place, an international solidarity fund for the economic and social reconstruction of that country. We also present our opposition to the reactivation of the Fourth Naval Fleet of the United States in the waters of Latin America.

Proposals for internal policies:

1. Control and immediately reduce interest rates.

2. Impose strict control over the movement of international speculative capital, instituting quarantines and preventing the free movement, penalizing their earnings with high taxes.

3. We demand that all the governments use their natural wealth, from energy, oil, and minerals, to create solidarity funds to invest in the definitive solution for the problems of the people such as the right to jobs, education, land, and housing. For this purpose, the Brazilian government needs to immediately cancel the new auction of oil that is scheduled for December 18.

4. The federal government must revise the policy of maintenance of the primary surplus that is an old discredited orientation of the IMF – one of the bodies responsible for the international economic crisis. And we must use the funds from the primary surplus to make huge governmental investments in the construction of public transportation and popular housing for low income people, thus giving support to urban and agrarian reform, encouraging the production of food by family and peasant farming. Massive investments are necessary in the construction of schools, hiring teachers to provide universal access to education for our youth at all levels in public schools that are free and of high quality.

5. We demand that the government establish goals for the opening of new jobs, through a broad program of incentives for the creation of formal employment, especially for youth. To immediately readjust the minimum wage and the social security benefits as the main way of distributing income to the poorest.

6. Control the prices of farm products paid to the small producers, implementing a massive program of guarantees for food purchases, through CONAB. Today the international corporations that control farm trade are penalizing the farmers, reducing by 30% on average the prices paid for milk, corn, pork, and poultry. But the prices continue to rise in the supermarket.

7. Revoke the Kandir Law and return to taxing the exports of agricultural raw materials and minerals so that the populations is not penalized to encourage their export.

8. The Federal Government cannot use public money to subsidize and help save the banks and speculating corporations that always earned a lot of money and now want to transfer the burden of the crisis to all of society. The ones who always defended the market as the regulating god should now assume the consequences of it. In this sense the public banks (National Development Bank) should be oriented not to help big capital but to work for the benefit of all the people.

9. Reduce the work day throughout the country and in all sectors, without reducing wages, as one of the ways to create job openings. And strongly penalize the businesses that are laying people off.

10. The media continues to be concentrated in the hands of a few economic groups. This situation reinforces the diffusion of a unique way of thinking that privileges profit to the detriment of people and excludes the visions of social segments and their organizations from the public debate. To reverse this situation and place the media at the service of society, we need to broaden the people’s control over the concessions of radio and TV, strengthen public communication and ensure conditions for the functioning of community radio stations, and end the repression over them. For all of this, it’s urgent that the federal government convoke the National Communication Conference.

11. To guarantee the territories and the physical and cultural integrity of the indigenous peoples and quilombos as the Constitution specifies, the Federal Government must continue to demarcate the territories and bring about the non-interference in these territories throughout the country, without ceding to the growing pressures of the anti-indigenous sectors, which are political as well as economic. In the struggle for their territorial rights, the indigenous peoples and quilombo communities have confronted discriminatory violence that is increasingly stronger throughout the country. We call special attention at this time to the urgency of demarcating the traditional lands of the indigenous Guarani Kaiowá people who live in Mato Grosso do Sul. Currently, they are confined in small portions of land and mainly for this reason there is a high incidence of suicide among the people.

12. Hold a public hearing on the public debt to launch the technical and legal bases for the sovereign renegotiation of its amount and its payment, considering the historic, social, and environmental debts of which the working people are the creditors.

13. We demand a political reform that broadens the spaces for the people’s participation in political decisions. We need a reform that is not only electoral but which broadens the instruments of direct and participatory democracy.

14. In times of crisis, there is a predatory onslaught against our natural resources as a form of easy and rapid accumulation. For this reason, we do not accept the irresponsible proposals for changes in the environmental legislation on the part of representatives of agribusiness, who intend to reduce the areas of legal reserves in Amazonia and the areas of hillside, mountaintops and the fertile valleys that remain of the Atlantic Forest. We propose the creation of a policy of preservation and recuperation of the Brazilian biomass.

15. We are against the criminalization of poverty and of the social movements. For the end of violence and for the free right of protest of those who struggle in defense of economic, social, and cultural rights of the people.

We hope that the government helps to unleash a broad process of discussion in society, in all the segments of society so that the Brazilian people perceive the seriousness of the crisis, mobilize themselves and struggle for changes.

Sincerely,
Via Campesina
Assembléia Popular – AP
Coordenação dos Movimentos Sociais – CMS
Grito dos Excluídos Continental
Grito dos Excluídos Brasil
Associação Nacional de Ong’s – ABONG
Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra – MST
Central Única dos Trabalhadores – CUT
União Nacional dos Estudantes – UNE
Marcha Mundial de Mulheres – MMM
Central dos Trabalhadores e Trabalhadoras do Brasil – CTB
Central Geral dos Trabalhadores do Brasil – CGTB
Central de Movimentos Populares – CMP
Associação Brasileira de Imprensa – ABI
Confederação das Associações das Associações de Moradores – CONAM
Caritas Brasileira
CNBB/Pastorais Sociais
Comissão Pastoral da Terra – CPT
Conselho Indigenista Missionário – CIMI
Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores – MPA
Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens – MAB
Movimento das Mulheres Camponesas – MMC
União Brasileira de Mulheres – UBM
Coordenação Nacional de Entidades Negras – CONEN
Movimento dos Trabalhadores Desempregados – MTD
Movimento Trabalhadores Sem Teto – MTST
União Nacional Moradia Popular – UNMP
Confederação Nacional das Associações de Moradores – CONAM
Movimento Nacional de Luta por Moradia – MNLM
Ação Cidadania
Conselho Brasileiro de Solidariedade com Povos que Lutam pela Paz – CEBRAPAZ
Associação Brasileira de Rádios Comunitárias – ABRAÇO
Coletivo Brasil de Comunicação – INTERVOZES
Rede Brasil sobre Instituições Financeiras Multilaterais
Jubileu Sul Brasil
Movimento pela Libertação dos Sem Terras – MLST
União Estudantes Secundaristas – UBES
União Juventude Socialista – UJS
Evangélicos pela Justiça – EPJ
União nacional de Entidades Negras – UNEGRO
Federação Estudantes de Agronomia do Brasil – FEAB
Pastoral da Juventude do Meio Rural – PJR
Associação dos Estudantes de Engenharia Florestal – ABEEF
Confederação Nacional Trabalhadores Entidades de Ensino – CONTEE
Confederação Nacional Trabalhadores da Educação – CNTE
Confederação Nacional do Ramo Químico – CNQ/CUT
Federação Única dos Petroleiros – FUP
Sindicato Nacional dos Aposentados e Pensionistas – SINTAP/CUT
Associação Nacional de Pós-graduandos – ANPG
Confederação Nacional dos Metalúrgicos – CNM/CUT
Movimento Camponês Popular – MCP
Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira – COIAB
Conselho Indigenista de Roraima – CIR
Federação Trabalhadores Metalúrgicos do Rio Grande do Sul
Ação Franciscana de Ecologia e Solidariedade
Instituto Nacional Estudos Sócio-econômicos – INESC

Source: http://www.mstbrazil.org/?q=node/587

Markets rebound Citigroup gets $20bn lifeline from US government

2008-11-24T14:38:00.000-08:00

Dan Milmo in New York and Mark Tran
guardian.co.uk, Monday November 24 2008 13.20 GMT

Shares around the world rebounded strongly today as traders took heart from the US government's multibillion dollar rescue of Citigroup, the tottering US banking behemoth.

The move gave a big boost to confidence, sending shares sharply higher throughout Europe. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was also expected to move ahead strongly when trading begins later today. Citigroup shares surged more than 30% in pre-market trading, to $5.07.

By 1pm, the FTSE 100 index, which suffered its third worst week ever last week, was trading 176 points higher, a jump of almost 5%.

In an effort to shore up confidence in America's crumbling financial system, the US government has taken a $20bn (£13.4bn) stake in the bank. Its shares surged more than 30% in pre-market trading on Wall Street this afternoon.

The US treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, worked with officials throughout the weekend on the lifeline for the institution whose collapse would have wreaked havoc on the US economy.

The New York Federal Reserve board president, Timothy Geithner, who is expected to be nominated later today to succeed Paulson as treasury secretary, also was closely involved.

"With these transactions, the US government is taking the actions necessary to strengthen the financial system and protect US taxpayers and the US economy," the authorities said in a statement issued late last night. "We will continue to use all of our resources to preserve the strength of our banking institutions, and promote the process of repair and recovery and to manage risks."

The $20bn cash injection by the treasury will come from the $700bn US financial bail-out package. The move follows an earlier $25bn infusion in Citigroup for which the government received an ownership stake.

As part of the plan, the treasury and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will guarantee against the "possibility of unusually large losses" on up to $306bn of risky loans and securities backed by commercial and residential mortgages.

Under the loss-sharing arrangement, Citigroup will assume the first $29bn in losses on the risky pool of assets. Beyond that amount, the government would absorb 90% of the remaining losses, with Citigroup absorbing 10%.

The agreement places restrictions on executive compensation, including bonuses, and calls on Citigroup to take steps to help distressed homeowners.

The move is the latest in a string of high-profile government bail-outs. The Fed provided financial backing to JPMorgan Chase's buyout of ailing Bear Stearns in March. Six months later, the government was forced to take over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and throw a financial lifeline to the insurance giant American International Group.

Citigroup yesterday ran full-page newspaper adverts in the US to reassure investors and creditors it could survive the latest bout of turmoil in the markets. A slump in Citigroup stock last week saw its shares lose 60% of their value.

Once the world's largest bank, Citigroup's asset base of $2tn is much larger than Lehman Brothers, whose bankruptcy in September led to a deepening of the credit crisis that was threatening to engulf Citigroup.

Citigroup is adamant that the price slump, which has pushed its stock to the lowest point since 1992, is a product of mistaken fears for the strength of its balance sheet. In its adverts, it said financial markets had been tested in "unprecedented ways" this year, but its diversified business model – which ranges from credit cards to transaction services and investment banking – would steer it through the uncertainty. It ended with a clarion call and an unintentional allusion to the exhaustive talks this weekend at Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters: "That's why now, more than ever, you can feel confident that Citi never sleeps."

Mike Mayo, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, believes reserves of $25bn and other resources should cover estimated losses of $50bn on bad loans.

Richard Bove, at Ladenburg Thalmann & Co, said it would take a repeat of the Great Depression to threaten Citigroup's survival.

However, concerns over the US economy are focusing on Citigroup. Sean Egan, at Egan-Jones Ratings, has argued that the bank might need a further $50bn. The fear is that Citigroup will be exposed to more losses if US growth deteriorates severely. Last month, the bank obtained $25bn from the treasury's troubled asset relief programme.

Vikram Pandit, Citigroup's embattled chief executive, has ruled out a break-up, dismissing reports it might sell Smith Barney, its wealth management arm. But it is understood executives have not ruled out a break-up. Market professionals said Citigroup's stock would be hammered again this morning if a deal was not struck with the US government. Joe Saluzzi at Themis Trading said it needed to announce a break-up, management change or restructuring by today. "That would probably continue a rally on Monday morning," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/24/citigroup-bailout-banking-sector

At summit, Bush touts free-trade record

2008-11-22T19:40:00.001-08:00

LIMA, Peru (CNN) -- President Bush, in what could be his final overseas trip as president, called on international leaders Saturday to continue his administration's push for free trade despite the global financial crisis.

"One of the enduring lessons of the Great Depression is that global protectionism is a path to global economic ruin," Bush told the annual meeting of the 21-nation Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in the capital, Lima.

"I recognize I'm leaving office in two months," Bush said as he discussed the Doha trade talks, which were launched in 2001 to help liberalize international trade policies, "but nevertheless, this administration will push hard ... so that Doha can be completed and so we can send a message: We refuse to accept protectionism in the 21st century."

Touting his record on free trade, Bush said, "expanding trade and investment has been one of the highest priorities of my administration.
"When I took office, America had free trade agreements in force with only three nations. Today, we have agreements in force with 14."

Bush said that during his administration, "America's trade with the world has grown from $2.5 [trillion] to $4 trillion, an increase of 60 percent."
Among APEC member nations, he cited Chile and Peru as more than doubling their trade with the United States during his time in office, and trade with China more than tripling.

"Overall, America's trade with APEC nations now accounts for nearly two-thirds of our trade in the world," Bush said.

Bush chided the U.S. Congress, saying it was "extremely disappointing" that lawmakers adjourned without passing new trade agreements between the United States and Colombia, Panama and South Korea.
"I urge all those who support free trade to continue to press the case for the Congress to pass free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama and South Korea," he said, drawing applause from his audience.

Referring to the global financial crisis, Bush said, "recovering from the financial crisis is going to take time. But we'll recover and, in so doing, begin a new era of prosperity. The nations of APEC have faced tests before. We have risen to meet them together, and we will do so again."

After his speech, Bush met briefly with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Russia is a member of APEC. "This will be my last meeting as the sitting president with the leader of Russia," Bush said after the two leaders shook hands.

"We've had our agreements; we've had our disagreements. I've tried to work hard to make it a cordial relationship, though, so that when we need to work together, we can, and when we disagree, we're able to do so in a way that is respectful to our two nations," Bush said.

Medvedev, speaking through an interpreter, responded by saying, "In general, though we do have points of agreement and those points of real differences ... we are prepared for the continuous work, and I view that, in general, our work was successful."

Bush's attendance at the APEC meeting marked his eighth year of meeting with and speaking to economic leaders from a diverse group of countries ranging from Thailand to Mexico, Chile to China.

Bush came to the APEC meeting seeking to build on the results of a historic two-day meeting in Washington this month attended by presidents and prime ministers from 20 countries. At that meeting, world leaders unveiled a set of sweeping plans aimed at tackling the ever-expanding economic crisis, which has roiled financial markets worldwide.

The final 3,600-word announcement from that Group of 20 meeting in Washington endorsed several stimulative measures, including interest rate cuts by central banks around the globe or potential economic stimulus packages.

Leaders who met in Washington also agreed not to raise new trade barriers over the next 12 months and vowed to reach a resolution on the Doha trade talks.
Bush gave the APEC leaders a briefing on the Washington meeting, according to Dan Price, assistant to the president for international economic affairs, and the leaders discussed the issues of the global economic crisis, the Doha trade talks and food aid.

On food issues, Bush noted that the United States has budgeted $5.5 billion in food aid for this year and next, Price said.Price said that all of the other APEC leaders endorsed the measures discussed by the Group of 20 meeting in Washington.

Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/22/bush.apec.summit/?iref=mpstoryview

Goodbye G7, hello G20

2008-11-22T19:37:00.001-08:00

Nov 20th 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

A bit of good news after a big summit

JUDGED by the hubristic promises that preceded it, the G20 meeting was bound to disappoint. The leaders of the world’s 20 biggest rich and emerging economies, gathered in Washington, DC, on November 15th, did not remake global finance—as some of them had set out to do. Nor, as others had hoped, did they come up with a co-ordinated fiscal boost to counter the deepening global downturn (though they talked of using fiscal measures “to rapid effect”).

And within days even some of their promises looked thin. The five-page communiqué included a solemn pledge that G20 countries would “refrain from raising new barriers” to trade and investment over the next twelve months. Two days later Russia’s government said it would raise tariffs on imported cars. On November 18th India slapped a 5% duty on a number of iron and steel products.

So was it all a waste of time? There are some reasons to think not. For one, this was the first time the leaders of this group of rich and emerging economies—which between them represent almost 90% of global GDP—had gathered for an economic summit. They have already scheduled a follow-up session before April 30th, and the old, rich-only G7 looks increasingly anachronistic.

Fortunately, the G20’s attitude to global finance seems realistic. The communiqué was not a grand manifesto but a pragmatic acknowledgment of the tension between a globalising capital market and national regulation. From the creation of colleges of financial supervisors to oversee the biggest cross-border financial institutions to the development of a single global accounting standard, the G20 leaders set out incremental reforms to the rules of global finance.

They also made clear that the governance of global financial institutions must change. The membership of the Financial Stability Forum, a group of regulators and central bankers charged with the technicalities of financial supervision, is to be broadened. The IMF and World Bank are to be “comprehensively” reformed. It is easy to be cynical. Talk about reforming power within the IMF has gone on for years. But with emerging economies now firmly at the top table of international finance, such an overhaul has become much more likely. Not a new Bretton Woods—but a decisive shift in the old order.

http://www.economist.com/finance/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=12652239

G-20 meet underscores gravity of economic crisis

2008-11-22T19:34:00.000-08:00

Friday, 11.21.2008, 07:04am (GMT-7)

India Post News Service

WASHINGTON DC: In what appears to have been the biggest and first of its kind global public relations exercise, heads of state of the Group of Twenty met over the weekend in Washington DC at the invitation of President George W Bush to assure economies across the globe that the world is not coming to an end. The overwhelming presence of the international media covering the G20 Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy held at the National Museum Building in Washington DC, Nov 14-15, underscored the extent and gravity of the economic crisis even as the gathered leaders sought to assure the world of their keenness to find solutions. The G20 countries plus the European Union, together account for almost 90 percent of global GDP.

Little wonder then that the US capital was besieged by the world media as Presidents, Prime Ministers and finance ministers of these nations converged amid serious challenges to the world economy and financial markets, in a cooperative bid to restore global growth and reform world financial systems. With just six weeks of his presidency left, President Bush played the perfect host, facilitating a platform for the gathered leaders rather than taking the lead on the stage. Significantly, the Summit ended with the leaders signing on a declaration, committing to an Open Global Economy, "rejecting protectionism and not turning inward in times of financial uncertainty." And in this regard, the Group of 20 declared that for the next 12 months, they would refrain from imposing any new trade or investment barriers, imposing new export restrictions, and strive to reach an agreement this year on modalities that lead to an ambitious outcome to the Doha Round of World Trade Organization negotiations.

The G20 countries committed to put an initial list of specific measures in an Action Plan that is to be completed by March 31, 2009. Identifying the root causes of the current crisis, the declaration put the responsibility of the crisis squarely on the shoulders of the advanced countries, without necessarily putting the entire blame on the United States, which got away for being the host country - one that is in the process of transitioning to a new administration. The Action Plan is one of the five key objectives achieved by the Summit where the leaders reached a common understanding of the root causes of the global crisis; reviewed actions countries have taken and will take to address the immediate crisis and strengthen growth; agreed on common principles for reforming the financial markets; and asked finance ministers to develop further specific recommendations that will be reviewed by leaders at a subsequent summit; and reaffirmed their commitment to free market principles.

This Summit is the first of a series of meetings to discuss efforts to deal with the present crisis, as well as to address longer-term financial and economic challenges. In terms of participation at this meeting, some had initially proposed that this summit be held among a relatively small group of countries, but President Bush apparently felt it was very important to have a broader mix of countries, both developed and developing, to participate in this discussion. Although the new world order appropriately required the expansion of the members countries, it is not clear if it augurs the end of the G7, the G8, the G8 plus 5 or any other similar grouping.

In addition to the leaders of these countries, the Summit was attended by heads of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as the UN Secretary General and the Chairman of the Financial Stability Forum. Root Causes Failure to exercise proper due diligence and seeking of higher yields without adequate appreciation of the risks involved have been found to be the root causes of the current crisis. "Policy makers, regulators and supervisors in some advanced countries did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovations, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions," the declaration underscored as a root cause of the current crisis.

The major underlying factors to the current situation were, among others inconsistent and insufficiently coordinated macroeconomic policies, inadequate structural reforms, which led to unsustainable global macroeconomic outcomes, the declaration said. These developments, together, contributed to excesses and ultimately resulted in severe market disruption, it said. The Summit, however, stuck to the belief that market principles, open trade and investment regimes, and effectively regulated financial markets are still the tried and tested factors for economic growth, job creation and poverty reduction. Of the immediate actions to be taken, the Summit leaders declared that in the face of deteriorating economic conditions worldwide emerging market economies and developing countries be supported, avoid negative spillovers and restore growth through a broader policy response based on closer macroeconomic cooperation.

The leaders agreed that immediate steps could be taken by recognizing the importance of monetary policy support and using fiscal measures as appropriate; providing liquidity to help unfreeze credit markets; and ensuring that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and other multilateral development banks (MDBs) have sufficient resources to assist development countries affected by the crisis, as well as provide trade and infrastructure financing. The leaders agreed on common principles to guide financial market reform and pledged that they would continue to take the right steps to get through this crisis. Action Plan Approving an Action Plan that sets forth a comprehensive work plan to implement these principles, the leaders asked their respective finance ministers to work to ensure that the Action Plan is fully and vigorously implemented.

The Plan includes immediate actions to:

* address weaknesses in accounting and disclosure standards for off-balance sheet vehicles;

* ensure that credit rating agencies meet the highest standards and avoid conflicts of interest, provide greater disclosure to investors, and differentiate ratings for complex products;

* ensure that firms maintain adequate capital, and set out strengthened capital requirements for banks' structured credit and securitization activities;

* develop enhanced guidance to strengthen banks' risk management practices, and ensure that firms develop processes that look at whether they are accumulating too much risk;

* establish processes whereby national supervisors who oversee globally active financial institutions meet together and share information; and

* expand the Financial Stability Forum to include a broader membership of emerging economies. The leaders further instructed respective finance ministers to make specific recommendations in the following areas: Avoiding regulatory policies that exacerbate the ups and downs of the business cycle; Reviewing and aligning global accounting standards, particularly for complex securities in times of stress; Strengthening transparency of credit derivatives markets and reducing their systemic risks; Reviewing incentives for risk-taking and innovation reflected in compensation practices; and Reviewing the mandates, governance, and resource requirements of the IFIs.

There was consensus that needed reforms will be successful only if they are grounded in a commitment to free market principles, including the rule of law, respect for private property, open trade and investment, competitive markets, and efficient, effectively regulated financial systems. Reform of Financial Markets Importantly, the group of 20 has adopted the implementation of reforms that will strengthen the markets and regulatory regimes so as to avoid future crises. "Regulation is first and foremost the responsibility of national regulators who constitute the first line of defense against market instability," the declaration said.

However, pointing out the global scope of the financial markets, the group declared that there should be intensified international cooperation among regulators and strengthening of international standards and their consistent implementation to protect against adverse cross-border, regional and global developments affecting international financial stability. Regulators must ensure that their actions support market discipline, avoid potentially adverse impacts on other countries, including regulatory arbitrage, and support competition, dynamism and innovation in the marketplace, the declaration said.

Also, it said that financial institutions must bear their responsibility for the turmoil and should do their part to overcome it including by recognizing losses, improving disclosure and strengthening their governance and risk management practices.

SRIREKHA N. CHAKRAVARTY

Wall Street halts futures trading amid panic

2008-10-24T15:32:00.000-07:00

From The Times
October 25, 2008

Suzy Jagger in New York

Stock markets across the world cracked yesterday, forcing Wall Street to suspend trading on a key futures contract to stem panic-selling while Moscow shut for business altogether.

Sharp losses in New York, London, Europe and the Far East raised the spectre that governments may be forced to impose emergency holidays to avert a meltdown across world stock markets.

Before Wall Street opened yesterday, American regulators suspended all trading of Dow Jones futures contracts, which had plunged. Such contracts allow traders to bet on the future direction of the Dow Jones index. The plunge had triggered an automatic circuit breaker, which halts trading to prevent a market sliding into freefall.

Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics at New York University, said that his prediction earlier this week that markets would have to be shut down is already coming true.

He said: “This morning, even before the markets in the US opened, the S&P futures fell by more than their daily limit. What I said yesterday has already started.”

A forced closure of stock markets in America would respresent the first time that Washington would have shut Wall Street since the terrorist attacks of September 2001. It would also have echoes of the 1930s, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt shut American banks during an enforced holiday.

Yesterday, investors became gripped with fear as they realised that recent attempts by central bankers to bail out financial institutions and cut interest rates would not prevent a severe global recession.

In New York, the Dow Jones industrial average plunged 312.30 points, or 3.6 per cent, to 8,378.95. In London, the FTSE 100 fell to its lowest level for five years, sinking 204 points, or 5 per cent, to 3,883. Among the biggest casualties were stocks that previously had been relative safe havens in otherwise crumbling sectors. Shares in HSBC plummeted 14 per cent to their lowest level since 2003 as traders worried about the level of exposure of some financial institutions to emerging economies, which this week have turned to the International Monetary Fund to seek cash loans.

Other banking stocks suffered sharp losses. Shares in Barclays, the bank that has just acquired part of Lehman Brothers, also fell 12 per cent. In New York, Goldman Sachs lost 7.5 per cent and Morgan Stanley slid 8.6 per cent.

Traders in London were spooked by new data showing that the UK economy had slowed far more than expected during the third quarter of the year, stoking fears that Britain is on the brink of a protracted recession.

The pound plunged against the US dollar, falling almost 5 per cent to $1.5522 as investors braced themselves for at least two years’ financial misery.

American investors fled to safe-haven investments, such as Treasury bonds. As demand for Treasuries drove up their price, the yield on the 30-year Government-backed bond fell to its lowest level since 1977.

Traders largely ignored new optimistic data indicating that America’s housing market may be heading for a recovery. They also ignored a slight easing in most benchmark Libor rates, which reflect the cost of borrowing money between banks.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5010556.ece

Global panic as investors take fright at spreading recession

2008-10-24T15:22:00.000-07:00

From The Times
October 25, 2008

Gary Duncan, Economics Editor

Shares plunged around the world yesterday as fears of a global recession swept markets in a day of mayhem that saw wild swings in currencies, commodities, stock and bonds. The risk of a severe worldwide downturn triggered another rout in stock markets from Asia to America amid concerns that governments may now be powerless to halt a global slump.

The scale of risks to the world’s rapidly darkening economic prospects was underlined as China’s leaders joined Western governments for the first time to emphasise the gravity of the situation.

“The global financial crisis has been constantly spreading and worsening, creating a severe shock to global economic growth,” Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, told an Asia-EU summit in Beijing.

Hu Jintao, China’s President, said that his talks with European heads of government had resulted in large agreement that emergency measures to stave off global recession and reform financial regulation “must be found internationally”. “I think China will make its contribution to the stabili-sation of the world economy,” he said.

In Washington, the International Monetary Fund increased efforts to stem the spread of financial and economic upheavals across emerging markets. It struck a tentative deal with Iceland to restore confidence in the stricken Nordic economy with a $2 -billion (£1.26 billion) loan that will make Reykjavik the first Western capital to borrow from the IMF since 1976.

As a queue of other crisis-hit nations formed at the fund’s doors, including Ukraine, Serbia, Belarus and Pakistan, the IMF said it had more than $200 billion of funds available to prop up troubled economies.

The IMF is believed to be drawing up plans to allow emerging economies to borrow up to five times the amounts normally permitted, which could give countries such as Brazil access to up to $22.5 billion.

Earlier this month it announced that for the first time since the 1990s Asian crisis it was activating other emergency measures that let economies in distress secure aid more swiftly than usual.

Despite the frenzied efforts, jittery markets delivered a brutal vote of no confidence. Shares on both sides of the Atlantic were sent into another tailspin.

In London, the FTSE 100 index slumped by 9 per cent at one stage before closing down by 204.5 points, or 5 per cent. France’s CAC 40 shed another 4 per cent and Germany’s Dax index dropped by 5 per cent, driving European shares to their worst levels for five-and-a-half years.

Mike Lenhoff, of Brewin Dolphin, the London brokerage, said: “I sense we’ve moved beyond the credit crisis. There is a recognition of the damage inflicted on the global economy, that is the recession, by the credit crisis.” In early afternoon trading in New York, the Dow Jones industrial average tumbled by more than 4 per cent, while the broader-based S&P 500 index of American blue chip companies was down 3 per cent.

Overnight on Thursday the Nikkei 225 in Japan closed down by almost 10 per cent. In Moscow, trading was suspended on the stock market after it lost more than a tenth of its value yesterday and hit lows not seen since late 2004. In Europe, the vicious sell-off in shares was fuelled as a key survey of the 15-nation eurozone’s companies showed its vast services sector shrinking at its fastest pace since the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the US.

With eurozone manufacturing also shrinking at the fastest pace in at least a decade, markets swiftly drew the conclusion that the world’s second-largest economic bloc was joining Britain and America in recession. “This is it, we are clearly into recession,” Gilles Moec, a eurozone economist at Bank of America, said.

The worldwide panic among investors was stoked by a wave of warnings from the world’s most powerful corporate players of the toll being inflicted on their sales and profit prospects.

Shares in Sony, the electronics giant, sank to a 13-year low after it halved its expected profits. PSA Peugeot Citroën, the French carmaker, announced plans for massive production cuts, while Italy’s Fiat, Germany’s Daimler and South Korea’s Hyundai announced bleak 2009 forecasts. In the US, Chrysler said it was closing one plant early and slashing 1,825 jobs, and General Motors said that it would make big job cuts.

After Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, said that the global crisis had “turned out to be much broader than anything I could have imagined”, the freefall in shares spilled over into drastic swings in currency and commodity markets.

In a day of extreme volatility on foreign exchanges, the previously unassailable strength of the euro suffered one of its biggest reversals, falling by 3 per cent against a resurgent dollar, which hit fresh two-year highs. The euro fell to levels as low as $1.2488, dramatically down by almost a quarter from its record highs of $1.6038 reached as recently as mid-July.

“You are seeing the currencies move as they would in any sort of full-fledged panic,” Firas Askari, head currency trader at BMO Capital Markets’ in Toronto, said “It’s a little disconcerting to say the least. Everyone needs to take a deep breath. Personally, I think we have to be close to the end of this awful cycle. It’s usually darkest at the bottom.”

Prices for commodities, from copper to zinc, sugar and coffee, as well as oil, were battered as speculators bet that demand for the products would wilt in a world recession.

Greenspan Concedes to `Flaw' in His Market Ideology

2008-10-23T14:28:00.000-07:00

By Scott Lanman and Steve Matthews

Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said a ``once-in-a-century credit tsunami'' has engulfed financial markets and conceded that his free-market ideology shunning regulation was flawed.

``Yes, I found a flaw,'' Greenspan said in response to grilling from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. ``That is precisely the reason I was shocked because I'd been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.''

Greenspan said he was ``partially'' wrong in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected.

``We cannot expect perfection in any area where forecasting is required,'' he said. ``We have to do our best but not expect infallibility or omniscience.''

Part of the problem was that the Fed's ability to forecast the economy's trajectory is an inexact science, he said.

``If we are right 60 percent of the time in forecasting, we are doing exceptionally well; that means we are wrong 40 percent of the time,'' Greenspan said. ``Forecasting never gets to the point where it is 100 percent accurate.''

Self-Policing

The admission that free markets have their faults was a shift for the former Fed chairman who declared in a May 2005 speech that ``private regulation generally has proved far better at constraining excessive risk-taking than has government regulation.''

Today Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, said Greenspan had ``the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis.''

``You were advised to do so by many others,'' he told Greenspan. ``And now our whole economy is paying the price.''

Waxman and other lawmakers repeatedly interrupted Greenspan as he answered their questions, in contrast to deference to his testimony while he was Fed chairman.

Firms that bundle loans into securities for sale should be required to keep part of those securities, Greenspan said in prepared testimony. Other rules should address fraud and settlement of trades, he said.

Resistant to Regulation

Greenspan opposed increasing financial supervision as Fed chairman from August 1987 to January 2006. Policy makers are now struggling to contain a financial crisis marked by record foreclosures, falling asset prices and almost $660 billion in writedowns and losses tied to U.S. subprime mortgages.

Today, the former Fed chairman asked: ``What went wrong with global economic policies that had worked so effectively for nearly four decades?''

Greenspan reiterated his ``shocked disbelief'' that financial companies failed to execute sufficient ``surveillance'' on their trading counterparties to prevent surging losses. The ``breakdown'' was clearest in the market where securities firms packaged home mortgages into debt sold on to other investors, he said.

``As much as I would prefer it otherwise, in this financial environment I see no choice but to require that all securitizers retain a meaningful part of the securities they issue,'' Greenspan said. That would give the companies an incentive to ensure the assets are properly priced for their risk, advocates say.

Subprime Lending

Greenspan said the Fed didn't know the size of the subprime mortgage market until late 2005.

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox and former Treasury Secretary John Snow also appeared at the House committee hearing.

Snow said the economy is headed down a ``bad, bad path'' and he endorsed consideration of more fiscal stimulus. For the longer term, Snow said the global financial system should be reorganized by focusing on increasing transparency of ``excessive'' leverage to prevent institutions from creating too much risk.

The U.S. needs ``one strong national regulator'' to oversee firms and fix what Snow called ``a fragmented approach'' to regulation. ``Steps to restore transparency and responsibility in the marketplace will go a long way towards restoring stability and confidence,'' he said.

Addressing the trio that oversaw the U.S. financial markets as the housing bubble developed, Representative John Yarmuth, a Democrat from Kentucky, characterized them as ``three Bill Buckners,'' referring to the Boston Red Sox first baseman whose fielding error some fans blame for the team's loss in the 1986 World Series.

To contact the reporter on this story: Scott Lanman in Washington at slanman@bloomberg.net; Steve Matthews in Atlanta at smatthews@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: October 23, 2008 14:14 EDT

A financial new world order?

2008-10-19T15:23:00.000-07:00

Bush says reforms must improve, not fetter, the free market; Europeans hint at more robust intervention.

By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the October 20, 2008 edition

WASHINGTON - When President Bush hosts a world financial summit in the coming weeks, one of the least multilateral American presidents in decades will set in motion what could result in a full reordering of the global financial system.

The series of summits that Mr. Bush announced over the weekend at Camp David with European leaders at his side suggests a broad understanding among them: that the current crisis requires the kind of global regulatory reforms that have eluded major powers in the past.

Europeans especially are speaking of a "Bretton Woods II" that could do for financial markets what the 1944 summit at a resort in New Hampshire did for monetary policy.

But the call for a summit also underscores the degree to which a once go-it-alone presidency has shifted to embrace not only the necessity of international cooperation, but also a role of global leadership.

"Talk of a Bretton Woods II has been around to different degrees for 30 years. But the fact it is getting started with an outgoing administration and especially one that was at the center of a significant crisis between America and Europe, between America and the rest of the world, suggests the recognition that there is urgency in the air," says Simon Serfaty, an expert in US-Europe relations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. "It also adds legitimacy to the coming process."

That process, which is expected to stretch into next year and a new American administration, will get under way with a summit that Bush will host sometime after Nov. 4, the date of US elections, according to a statement issued Saturday by Bush, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and European Union Commission President José Manuel Barroso.

The initial summit is expected to be a kind of expanded Group of Eight meeting, assembling the leaders of the most industrialized nations and those of major developing economies like China, India, Brazil, and South Korea. It would aim to assess the current global crisis and to come up with a set of principles of reform.

Actual agreements on reforms could come at subsequent summits, but the initial meeting would allow Bush to place his stamp on the process before leaving office, while also facilitating a continuity of American leadership.

Saturday's meeting offered a picture of transatlantic unity, but that hardly means the road ahead will be discord-free. Bush says future reforms and new international regulations must improve but not fetter the free market, while European leaders hint at much more robust state intervention with tighter regulations.

Bush recognized the need for "regulatory institutional changes" but added, "It is essential that we preserve the foundations of democratic capitalism – commitment to free markets, free enterprise, and free trade."

In response, President Sarkozy said, "The president of the United States is right in saying that protectionism and closing one's borders is a catastrophe.... But we cannot continue along the same lines," he added, "because the same problems will trigger the same disasters."

Mr. Barroso was more succinct: "We need a new global financial order."

Those words could send shivers through a White House that is suspicious of the current chorus of world leaders – European, Russian, and others less friendly to the US – who are hailing the current economic crisis as a moment to usher in a multipolar world. Bush indicated he seeks to maintain some degree of American stewardship over the financial reform effort when he politely declined the offer of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon to host the expanded G-8 summit at the UN in New York.

Among the issues the White House has indicated it would endorse for a reform agenda are rules for the international flow of investment funds, improved oversight of increasingly global financial institutions, and means of boosting the transparency of international financial transactions and markets.

But European leaders have called for what sound like much deeper reforms. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for example, has proposed a reorganization of the International Monetary Fund – a Bretton Woods institution.

Behind the European proposals is a sense that the financial crisis and America's darkening economic prospects make this an opportunity for the European Union to play a bigger international role. Last week at the close of a two-day EU summit on the financial crisis, Sarkozy predicted that an international summit would take place before the end of the year because "Europe wants it, Europe demands it. Europe will get it."

More than a show of unity with a declaration for a series of summits will be needed if the world is truly to come together to address the crisis, some observers note. "Unity of purpose is not found in a meeting or series of meetings. It's found in purpose," says Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "Whether that's something the major players in this crisis can come together on remains to be seen."

But Mr. Serfaty points out that the Europeans chose to engage the Bush administration, when just a few years ago the deep divisions over the Iraq war were disrupting such cooperation.

"Rather than seeing any kind of disconnect," he says, "I think we should emphasize the fact the Europeans are doing what [the Americans] want them to do, in that they are coming together and taking a proactive approach to this crisis."

Find this article at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1020/p01s01-usec.html

Government to go after stock market violators

2008-10-11T01:04:00.000-07:00

The Jakarta Post, Sat, 10/11/2008

Aditya Suharmoko ,

The government is establishing a task force to help protect the slumping stock market from parties wanting to use "unhealthy" methods to benefit from the situation, Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati has announced.

Sri Mulyani said the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) and the Capital Market and Financial Institutions Supervisory Agency (Bapepam-LK) suspected some parties of involvement in such behavior -- one of the reasons the suspension of trading on the stock market was extended to Friday.

"If there are parties who want to reap gains while causing losses to others, there will be law enforcement. There will be a task force to deal with this," Sri Mulyani said.

The team will include officials from the Finance Ministry, the State Ministry for State Enterprises, the National Police, the Attorney General's Office and Bank Indonesia.

The police and the AGO investigators will be prepared to investigate any alleged criminal behavior in trading as early as Monday.

The market -- whose main index slumped around 21 percent in the first three days of this week -- may resume operation Monday, IDX president director Erry Firmansyah said.

Attorney General Hendarman Supandji said his office had reached a "preliminary conclusion that there are some parties trying to make use of the current situation in a bad way".

"We will be on the alert 24 hours a day," he said.

"In a time of crisis, there needs to be legal certainty, a stable situation."

Sri Mulyani said the government had decided to extend the suspension after also considering changes in risks following the drop in the U.S. stock market.

"We were not panicking, but we remained alert," she said.

"We always look at the rate of risks that change according to developments in the U.S."

She said the government had not closed the market out of fears the Jakarta Composite Index might drop as global stock markets crumbled.

"If there are (downward) movements, we will not fight it. But we do not want any parties exploiting the situation using bad means."

On rumors of a default by Bakrie Group, Sri Mulyani said Bapepam-LK and the IDX had requested the company provide a detailed and complete explanation about the rumors.

A public expos* is also necessary as "it is the company's responsibility to make a full explanation to shareholders".

In addition to the regional trend, another factor behind the Jakarta market's free fall from Monday to Wednesday was uncontrolled speculation about PT Bakrie & Brothers and its units, which dragged down the group's shares.

The decline in stock prices of Bakrie and its units, in particular PT Bumi Resources, was the main driver behind the index's 10.03 percent fall Monday, with transactions involving the group making up around a third of the total transactions.

The speculations center on concerns Bakrie will not be able to pay its short-term debts, which amount to $1.43 billion. The loans are backed by the shares of affiliated companies, including Bumi, PT Energi Mega Persada and PT Bakrie Sumatera Plantations.

Sri Mulyani also said the government had presented to the House of Representatives regulations in lieu of laws to amend laws on the deposit insurance agency, central bank and financial sector safety net, all designed to ease regulation and stimulate the financial sector.

The amendment will allow an increased limit of guarantee on bank deposits and the injection of liquidity into the banking sector by the central bank.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.
Source URL: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/10/11/government-go-after-stock-market-violators.html

Tak Akan Menjelma Jadi Krisis

2008-10-10T15:01:00.000-07:00

Kompas, Sabtu, 11 Oktober 2008

Jakarta, Kompas - Kejatuhan bursa saham dan nilai tukar rupiah yang terjadi dalam sepekan ini dinilai kecil kemungkinan menjelma menjadi krisis ekonomi berupa ambruknya perbankan dan sektor riil. Untuk meningkatkan kepercayaan pelaku pasar, pemerintah sebaiknya fokus menjaga daya beli masyarakat.

Demikian kesimpulan diskusi panel Kompas yang menghadirkan pengamat ekonomi Faisal Basri, Kepala Ekonom BNI Tony Prasetiantono, pengamat pasar modal dan perbankan Mirza Adityaswara, serta Ketua Umum Himpunan Pengusaha Muda Indonesia Erwin Aksa Mahmud, Jumat (10/10) di Jakarta.

Para panelis menilai tingkat krisis yang dihadapi Indonesia sangat berbeda dengan Amerika Serikat (AS), Eropa, dan negara maju lainnya. Di AS, krisis telah merasuk ke semua sektor, mulai dari pasar modal, perbankan, hingga sektor riil.

Namun, di Indonesia krisis hanya terjadi di pasar modal. Krisis yang terjadi di pasar modal dinilai tidak mudah bertransmisi ke sektor lain mengingat kontribusi pasar modal dalam sistem keuangan Indonesia amat kecil.

Hal senada dikatakan Wakil Presiden Jusuf Kalla di tempat terpisah. Menurut Kalla, sebenarnya ekonomi tidak terlalu terpengaruh dengan ambruknya bursa dunia, seperti Wall Street. ”Perbedaannya, kita banyak menggantungkan pada ekonomi domestik. Seperti di AS, pengaruh bursa itu sampai 1,5 kali dari produk domestik bruto mereka. Kalau kita pengaruhnya hanya 20 persen. Jadi, jangan terlalu dirisaukan,” kata Wapres.

Faisal Basri mengingatkan, penyesuaian yang terjadi di pasar modal dan nilai tukar domestik merupakan hal wajar karena seluruh dunia terkena imbas krisis keuangan AS.

Penurunan ekonomi AS dan Eropa juga tak perlu dikhawatirkan mengingat peran mereka dalam perdagangan dunia makin menyusut. Sebagai gantinya, kini muncul kekuatan ekonomi baru, seperti China, India, dan Rusia.

Tony Prasetiantono menjelaskan, krisis keuangan global yang terjadi saat ini merupakan koreksi atas kesenjangan (gap) yang terjadi antara pertumbuhan sektor riil dan sektor finansial.

Koreksi berupa penurunan harga-harga di sektor finansial dan kenaikan harga-harga di sektor riil, seperti harga komoditas.

Mirza Adityaswara menambahkan, untuk meningkatkan kepercayaan diri para pelaku pasar, pemerintah dan Bank Indonesia (BI) harus lebih fokus menjaga ketahanan sistem perbankan. Sebab, kehancuran sektor inilah yang sebenarnya dapat memicu krisis ekonomi.

Kondisi perbankan juga sangat menentukan pertumbuhan ekonomi. Investasi swasta dan konsumsi rumah tangga, yang selama ini menopang pertumbuhan ekonomi, amat mengandalkan kredit sebagai sumber pembiayaan.

Erwin Aksa Mahmud mengatakan, yang menjadi prioritas saat ini adalah menjaga daya beli masyarakat tidak turun agar ekonomi tetap tumbuh. Caranya, memberikan insentif kepada sektor riil dan menyetop kenaikan suku bunga.

Batal buka BEI

Jumat kemarin, pemerintah membatalkan rencana pembukaan kembali perdagangan di Bursa Efek Indonesia (BEI). Hal ini dilakukan karena otoritas bursa ingin melindungi emiten. Emiten perlu dilindungi dari kemungkinan keterpurukan nilai harga saham akibat sentimen negatif pasar terhadap kondisi keuangan global yang sedang krisis.

”Kami tidak ingin perusahaan Indonesia yang listed (terdaftar di BEI) menghadapi imbas yang tidak perlu, hanya karena masalah sistemik dari krisis keuangan global. Jadi, yang kami cari adalah waktu yang tepat (untuk membuka kembali bursa),” kata Menteri Keuangan sekaligus Pelaksana Jabatan Menteri Koordinator Bidang Perekonomian Sri Mulyani Indrawati.

Penyesatan

Sementara itu, Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan (Bapepam-LK) mengakui adanya penyesatan informasi atas perdagangan sejumlah saham di BEI. Penyesatan informasi tersebut telah mengakibatkan harga saham sejumlah emiten jatuh di posisi yang cukup rendah.

”Memang ada pihak-pihak yang kami curigai sengaja memberikan informasi yang salah supaya harga saham jatuh, lantas nanti ada yang mau ambil. Saya tak mau bilang siapa karena tidak etis,” kata Ahmad Fuad Rahmany, Ketua Bapepam-LK, sambil menambahkan, pihak yang menyesatkan informasi di pasar modal itu ada yang berasal dari kalangan investor dan ada dari perusahaan sekuritas atau broker.

Menurut dia, Bapepam-LK akan memeriksa investor dan broker yang diduga telah melanggar peraturan pasar modal itu setelah situasi mereda.(FAJ/REI/HAR/OIN)

faj;rei;har;oin

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/10/11/02163377/tak.akan.menjelma.jadi.krisis

Sebab-musabab krisis di Amerika

2008-10-10T02:45:00.000-07:00

Krisis Industri Keuangan Negara Adidaya
TEMPO Interaktif, Jum'at, 10 Oktober 2008 | 14:41 WIB

Cyrillus Harinowo

PADA Mei 2004, saya menyelenggarakan Seminar ”Dollar Versus Euro” di Hotel Shangri-La. Euro belum sekuat saat ini, tapi saya percaya mata uang Eropa itu akan menjadi jangkar dalam peta keuangan dunia. Sayangnya, kesimpulan seminar tersebut agak jauh dari dugaan saya, yaitu dolar Amerika masih akan tetap kuat, sementara euro belum memiliki kekuatan yang dapat dibandingkan dengan dolar. Ketidakpuasan saya itu akhirnya saya tuangkan dalam tulisan ”Membaca Tanda-tanda Zaman” di majalah Tempo beberapa minggu kemudian.

Tulisan tersebut merupakan hasil pengamatan saya atas perkembangan perekonomian makro selama pemerintahan Bush. Defisit anggaran mulai menggelembung, juga defisit neraca pembayaran. Utang pemerintah Amerika naik tajam. Saya memprediksi perekonomian Amerika akan mengalami crash dan euro menguat. Hati saya terpecah. Di satu sisi, saya ingin melihat prediksi saya terbukti. Di sisi lain, saya tahu persis bahwa crash perekonomian sebuah negara adidaya akan membawa konsekuensi yang luas pada perekonomian dunia.

Pada 2005 ternyata saya tak melihat prediksi itu menjadi kenyataan. Perekonomian Amerika ”baik-baik saja”. Demikian juga tahun berikutnya. Namun euro menguat secara bertahap. Pada 2007, prediksi mulai menjadi kenyataan, meskipun penyebabnya berbeda. Dari pemetaan itu, krisis yang terjadi dalam industri keuangan Amerika akhirnya menemui ujungnya: beban utang pemerintah Amerika naik tajam.

Berawal dari ketamakan
Krisis berawal dari problem yang timbul pada kredit perumahan. Kredit perumahan yang awalnya berjalan baik karena ditujukan kepada nasabah prima akhirnya meluas kepada nasabah-nasabah yang tidak layak. Nasabah yang pernah dilanda kredit macet memperoleh kembali kredit baru. Selain itu, banyak kredit yang diberikan dengan uang muka yang sangat rendah, yaitu lima persen, atau bahkan tanpa uang muka sama sekali. Banyak pula kredit yang hanya mempersyaratkan pembayaran bunga (interest only) dan tidak mewajibkan nasabah membayar cicilan pokok sama sekali.

Mengapa perbankan Amerika sampai amat teledor? Jawabannya adalah karena harga-harga properti naik tajam bertahun-tahun tanpa henti. Dengan harga rumah yang naik terus, nilai jaminan (harga rumah) juga meningkat, sedangkan jumlah pinjaman pokoknya tetap.

Karena itu, dalam perhitungan bank, walaupun tanpa uang muka, jika harga naik 20 persen per tahun, nilai jaminan akan menjadi 120 persen dari harga awal. Sehingga nilai pinjaman dibandingkan dengan jaminan turun menjadi 83 persen. Seolah-olah pada akhir tahun pertama si nasabah sudah membayar uang muka 17 persen. Inilah yang disebut loan to value ratio. Situasi itulah yang membuat bank berani memberikan kredit pemilikan rumah tanpa uang muka. Bermacam-macam kredit itulah yang disebut sebagai subprime.

Apakah kenaikan harga rumah 20 persen itu betul-betul terjadi? Seorang teman Indonesia yang tinggal di Washington, DC, membeli rumah pada 1998 dengan harga US$ 210 ribu dan lima tahun kemudian menjualnya seharga US$ 410 ribu. Dengan situasi itu, seolah-olah ia tinggal lima tahun tanpa membayar, bahkan dibayar. Di banyak kota, kenaikan harganya sering lebih ”gila”. Itulah sebabnya banyak orang memberanikan diri mengajukan pinjaman pembelian rumah kedua untuk disewakan—uang sewanya dipakai untuk membayar cicilan.

Fenomena seperti ini bisa terjadi karena harga rumah naik terus. Hanya, kenaikan harga secara sistemik seperti itu cuma terjadi jika orang yang membeli rumah makin banyak. Juga jika bank terus memasok perekonomian dengan kredit pemilikan rumah yang makin besar. Tapi, karena nasabah bank tidak semuanya nasabah prima, bahkan banyak yang ”kambuhan” kredit macet, penyakit lama itu mulai muncul. Pembayaran cicilan pun mulai seret.

Karena keadaan itu, bank mulai hati-hati menyalurkan kredit. Dampaknya, kehati-hatian bank tersebut menyebabkan harga rumah berhenti naik, bahkan mulai turun. Penurunan harga itu menyebabkan nasabah kredit pemilikan rumah mulai berpikir apakah akan meneruskan cicilan atau ngacir saja. Akhirnya, kredit macet pun membesar. Jadilah problem kemacetan kredit subprime menggelinding seperti bola salju.

Maraknya derivatif subprime
Di Amerika Serikat, industri keuangan sudah demikian ”maju”-nya. Kredit-kredit perumahan itu akhirnya oleh bank yang bersangkutan dikumpulkan dan kemudian disekuritisasi. Ini adalah suatu proses mentransformasikan kredit pemilikan rumah menjadi surat berharga (sekuritas). Istilah yang sering dipergunakan untuk surat berharga yang dijamin oleh kredit pemilikan rumah tersebut adalah mortgage back securities (MBS) dengan varian yang bernama collateralized debt obligation (CDO).

Nasabah tetap membayar cicilan kepada bank asalnya, tapi bank itu kemudian meneruskan pembayarannya kepada pihak yang membeli surat berharga tersebut. Jika pembayaran cicilan lancar, pembayaran dari bank kepada pemegang surat utang juga lancar. Namun, karena pembayaran dari nasabah sebagian mulai batuk-batuk, pembayaran kepada pemilik MBS dan CDO tersebut juga tersendat. Siapa pemegang dua jenis surat utang itu?

Proses sekuritisasi kedua varian surat utang tersebut banyak dibantu oleh lembaga keuangan yang awalnya didirikan pemerintah Amerika untuk tujuan itu, yaitu Fannie Mae dan Freddie Mac. Karena tugas tersebut, kedua lembaga itu juga memberikan jaminan. Juga karena perannya, mereka akhirnya memiliki ”stock” MBS dan CDO yang belum laku atau mereka memang ingin memilikinya.

Dengan peran seperti itu, begitu terjadi kisruh pembayaran cicilan MBS dan CDO, pasar memperkirakan kedua lembaga yang sahamnya sudah dicatatkan di New York Stock Exchange itu pasti rugi besar. Investor pun rame-rame melepas saham kedua perusahaan itu, yang berujung pada anjloknya harga saham. Dalam keadaan yang sudah amat kepepet, pemerintah Amerika menolong kedua lembaga itu.

Lembaga lain yang memiliki MBS dan CDO amat banyak, antara lain bank besar seperti Citigroup atau UBS. Karena nilai kedua jenis surat utang tersebut jatuh, bank-bank itu harus mulai melakukan ”penghapusan” (write down), yang akhirnya membuat mereka rugi dan modalnya tergerus. Investor pun melepas saham bank-bank itu, sehingga harga saham mereka pun ikut ambles.

CDS, derivatif yang sangat beracun
Beberapa bank investasi juga memiliki MBS dan CDO itu, sehingga mereka pun merugi. Tapi ternyata yang menjadi masalah lebih besar adalah ditemukannya instrumen keuangan baru (derivatif) yang bernama credit default swap (CDS).

Instrumen ini pada awalnya punya tujuan baik, yaitu memberikan ”asuransi” bagi pemiliknya jika kredit (bisa obligasi atau surat berharga lain, termasuk MBS dan CDO) yang mereka miliki terkena masalah. Yang tidak baik adalah pelaksanaannya kemudian. Lagi-lagi masalah ini timbul karena dimulai dari ketamakan.

Sebuah perusahaan yang memiliki obligasi ingin melindungi dirinya dari kemungkinan obligor gagal bayar dengan membeli asuransi yang disebut CDS itu. Dengan begitu, mereka memiliki kepastian mengenai nilai obligasi itu meskipun harus membayar premi. Perusahaan yang mengeluarkan asuransi itu di pihak lain juga harus menyisihkan dananya sebagai ”kolateral”. Jika obligasi itu akhirnya gagal bayar, perusahaan tersebut memiliki uang untuk membayar kerugian kepada pihak yang membeli asuransi tadi.

Dalam perjalanannya, perusahaan yang mengeluarkan CDS ternyata banyak yang tidak menyisihkan kolateral. Yang lebih parah, CDS yang sama diperjualbelikan. Dengan cara ini, mereka menerima premi yang besar, sehingga akhirnya dapat menghasilkan ”laba” yang kian besar. Dengan laba yang naik tajam ini, bonus juga sangat besar. Kalau obligasinya tetap lancar, transaksi seperti ini tentu amat menggiurkan. Tapi, karena MBS dan CDO mulai bermasalah, pihak asuransi pun mulai banyak diklaim. Di sinilah kerugian yang sangat besar terjadi.

Jumlah kerugian kolosal itu akhirnya memaksa pemerintah Amerika mengambil langkah darurat. Sebagian lembaga keuangan dibantu, seperti Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, dan AIG. Goldman Sachs dan Morgan Stanley juga dibantu dengan diizinkan ”bermutasi” menjadi bank komersial. Yang dibiarkan jatuh adalah Lehman Brothers. Bantuan itu akhirnya dibuat menjadi terstruktur dengan jumlah yang diusulkan US$ 700 miliar.

Beban utang yang menimbulkan keraguan
Upaya penyelamatan US$ 700 miliar mestinya bisa menenangkan pasar. Tapi ternyata jumlah itu menimbulkan keraguan baru, yaitu dari sisi kesehatan keuangan pemerintah Amerika. Inilah inti yang saya bicarakan di awal artikel ini dalam ”Membaca Tanda-tanda Zaman”.

Jumlah utang pemerintah kini mencapai US$ 9,7 triliun dan tiap hari bertambah US$ 1,8 miliar. Dengan upaya penyelamatan itu, batas atas utang pemerintah ditetapkan US$ 11,3 triliun. Jika ini tercapai, rasio utang Amerika terhadap produk domestik bruto akan mencapai 80 persen dan akan naik terus. Pada masa pemerintahan yang akan datang, siapa pun presidennya, bukan tidak mungkin rasionya meningkat menjadi 100 persen.

Karena itu, pemerintah dituntut lebih keras bekerja, mengencangkan ikat pinggang, sehingga meledaknya beban utang itu tidak lepas kendali. Topik itu sampai kini belum menjadi agenda pemerintah Bush. Ini berbeda dibandingkan dengan pemerintah Clinton, yang sukses menekan defisit dan bahkan mencetak surplus anggaran dalam tiga tahun terakhir pemerintahannya. Amerika memiliki tanggung jawab yang amat besar untuk mencegah krisis itu menghancurkan perekonomian dunia.

Cyrillus Harinowo, Rektor ABFII Perbanas

Afternoon Turns Dark as Stocks Plunge

2008-10-10T02:38:00.000-07:00

New York Times, October 10, 2008

By VIKAS BAJAJ

Until 3 p.m. on Thursday, it seemed as if the stock market might escape another dark day.

Then the selling hit — and hit and hit again, mimicking trading on Tuesday and Wednesday. What had been a moderately down day ended in a rout, with the Dow Jones industrial average closing down 679 points, or 7.3 percent, leaving it below 9,000 for the first time in five years.

In the busiest day in New York Stock Exchange history, panicky investors dumped stocks en masse. Almost no corner of the market was spared, with 1,754 stocks falling and just 87 rising on the Big Board.

Despite unprecedented steps by policy makers around the world to defuse the financial crisis, fear is spreading that a deep global recession is at hand. The credit markets, the heart of the financial system, remained in near paralysis.

“There is a downward spiral of fear,” said Richard Sparks, senior equities analyst at Schaeffer’s Investment Research.

The plunge came in a stomach-churning 90 minutes. The Dow was down just 140 points at 2:30 p.m., and 200 points at 3. But then, wave after wave of selling began to roll through the market. By 3:20, the index was down 380 points. Ten minutes later, it was down 390 points. By 3:45, it was down 660. After staging a brief rally, it fell again.

In the last six trading days — starting last Thursday — the Dow has plummeted 2,251.8 points, or 20.8 percent, a decline big enough, on its own, to mark the start of a bear market. It also is similar to the drop in the Dow on Black Monday, Oct. 19, 1987, when it fell 22.6 percent.

Big oil companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron pulled the Dow lower, falling by roughly 12 percent each.

General Motors, the embattled automaker, fell $2.15, to $4.76. As a group, financial shares were hit the hardest, falling nearly 12 percent.

At current prices, analysts say, the market is suggesting that investors fear the kind of severe and long recession the country has not had since at least the early 1970s.

Reflecting concerns about the economy, crude oil prices fell 2.7 percent, to $86.59 a barrel. OPEC, the oil-producing cartel, on Thursday called an emergency meeting for Nov. 18 to consider cutting an output in an attempt to arrest the 41 percent drop in oil prices in the last three months.

Asian markets also reacted strongly to the turmoil. In Japan, the Nikkei 225 index was down 10 percent on Friday morning, after having plunged 9 percent on Wednesday. The Hang Seng index in Hong Kong fell 7 percent and the market in Singapore was down 6.8 percent.

What has prompted the late-day sell-offs recently is a subject of intense debate and conjecture, even among market professionals, who also have been unnerved by the free fall of the week.

Some attribute it to mutual funds’ waiting until midafternoon to execute sell orders from a growing number of investors who are cutting their exposure or bailing out of the market altogether. Others say that hedge funds, which have leveraged returns in recent years by using borrowed money, are having to sell holdings to raise collateral against their borrowings.

Still others say computerized trading, which has grown significantly in recent years, often kicks in later in the day, when certain thresholds are breached.

But whatever the reasons for the late-day plunges, what is driving the market down is a lack of confidence by investors, who are skeptical that the many measures taken by the government to rescue the financial system will work. Moreover, they worry that the government’s trotting out a new initiative every day or two is a sign that maybe the situation is worse than many thought.

Some who have held on until now are starting to sell. Since the start of the year, investors have removed more than $81 billion from stock mutual funds, with nearly 40 percent of that coming in the last six weeks, according to AMG Data Services.

Trevor Callan, a financial planner in La Jolla, Calif., said he has been bombarded by calls since Wednesday from nearly every one of his clients.

“The bottom line here is we’re witnessing complete panic,” Mr. Callan said. “There are certainly periods of time where rationality is thrown out the window, and this is one of them.”

The staggering decline in stocks has some investors questioning when the markets will stabilize. In fact, some pros believe that stocks bottom when many average investors pull out on a day of heavy selling — also known as capitulation.

Michael Cerenzie, a film producer, said he had been selling out of his million-dollar position in banking stocks and was looking to invest in companies specializing in natural gas and energy.

“This isn’t going to come back,” he said of the recent stock market losses. “This is going to be a long one. We are not going to see returns like we did in the past.”

Individuals are not the only ones bailing out. Market professionals are also selling, often even when they do not want to.

Many hedge funds have been forced to sell stocks and bonds this week because their lenders, big banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, demanded that they put up more capital against their positions and pay down margin loans.

Those demands are determined by a variety of factors like rising volatility and falling prices — all of which have been true in the last few days. In addition, because the banks are paying more to borrow money themselves, they are charging hedge funds more for loans, several bankers said.

Hedge funds, which cater to pension plans, endowments and wealthy individuals, have also had to sell to meet redemption requests from their clients.

With hedge funds selling and banks, including several in Iceland, in trouble, the market is experiencing “really big liquidations,” said Kingman Penniman, president of KDP Advisors, a bond research firm.

Those sales have driven down prices to such an extent that bank loans, which are considered much safer than bonds, are trading at levels implying that nearly a third of them will go into default. As of the end of September, defaults have climbed to just 3.3 percent.

“We are flushing out the system,” Mr. Penniman said. Referring to bankers and investors, he said, “They have decided that there is little they can do. We wanted to de-lever the whole financial system, and the hope was that it would be done in a orderly fashion. And they have given up all hope of that.”

Jane Caron, chief economic strategist at Dwight Asset Management, a bond trading firm, said professional investors were increasingly reluctant to buy because the computer models they used in the past had failed them. Like many everyday investors, the professionals fear that even though prices have fallen significantly, they could sustain further losses.

“Nobody is willing to transact,” Ms. Caron said, “and behind that, there are a lot of concerns about solvency.”

What happened on Thursday partly reflects the unintended consequences of regulators’ attempts to bolster stock prices several weeks ago, when the Securities and Exchange Commission temporarily banned short-selling in nearly 1,000 stocks.

That restriction was lifted at midnight on Wednesday. Short-selling is a practice in which investors sell shares they do not own in the hopes of buying them back later at a lower price. Many money managers use it to hedge their investments against future losses.

Analysts said those investors were probably forced to sell shares short on Thursday to protect themselves.

Those explanations not withstanding, many money managers said they had not seen stocks beaten up quite this much in a long time. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index is now down nearly 42 percent from its peak a year to the day from Thursday.

That decline makes this the third-worst bear market since World War II and the sixth-worst since 1929, according to Standard & Poor’s Equity Research. It would also qualify as one of the speediest declines in stock prices in history. The S.& P. 500 closed down 7.6 percent, to 909.92. The Dow closed at 8,579.19. Nearly 8.3 million stocks were traded on the New York exchange.

John Dorfman, manager of the Dorfman Value Fund, a mutual fund based in Boston, said he thought a bottom was near. While the economy is most likely in a recession, he said, he does not expect a depression. “A crisis always feels bottomless, and it usually isn’t,” he said.

Robert M. Solow, who won the Nobel Prize in 1987 for his work on economic growth, said that “potential for instability was always there,” but he was caught by surprise at the magnitude of the problems in the economy and financial system.

“I’m as puzzled as anyone else,” he said. “I don’t have any particular wisdom to sell.”

The benchmark 10-year Treasury bill fell 1 9/32, to 101 23/32, and the yield, which moves in the opposite direction from the price, was at 3.79 percent, up from 3.64 percent late Wednesday.

Following are the results of Thursday’s Treasury auction of the 7-year note, 10-year note and 97-day cash management bills:

Reporting was contributed by Laura M. Holson, Louise Story, Graham Bowley and Diana B. Henriques.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

BEJ Rontok

2008-10-10T02:36:00.000-07:00

Investor Panik, Perdagangan Dihentikan

Kompas, Kamis, 9 Oktober 2008

Jakarta, Kompas - Otoritas Bursa Efek Indonesia akhirnya menghentikan sementara perdagangan (suspensi) seluruh saham dan derivatif, Rabu (8/10) pukul 11.06 WIB. Suspensi dilakukan karena penurunan indeks harga saham gabungan sudah berada di luar batas kewajaran.

Pada perdagangan saham sesi pertama kemarin, IHSG anjlok 168,05 poin atau turun 10,38 persen menjadi 1.451,66 poin. Penurunan IHSG sedalam itu dinilai tidak masuk akal karena total nilai transaksi perdagangan saham dan derivatif (turunan saham) sampai menjelang suspensi dilakukan relatif kecil, hanya Rp 952,16 miliar.

”Kalau nilai perdagangan Rp 3 triliun-Rp 4 triliun, penurunan 10 persen mungkin masih bisa diterima akal karena saat ini seluruh bursa global juga terkoreksi. Namun, dengan nilai transaksi di bawah Rp 1 triliun, penurunan itu sangat irasional. Ada sesuatu yang tidak tepat,” kata Direktur Utama BEI Erry Firmansyah.

Menurut Erry, BEI harus segera melakukan suspensi pada saat perdagangan saham tengah berlangsung untuk menghindari IHSG jatuh lebih dalam lagi. BEI melihat bahwa aksi jual saham secara membabi buta yang dilakukan investor masih akan terus berlanjut jika perdagangan tetap dibuka.

”Hari ini (kemarin) pasar sangat panik. Kami sedang mencermati faktor-faktor lain yang menyebabkan pasar kita turun di luar pengaruh sentimen negatif terhadap pelemahan bursa regional dan global,” kata Erry.

Menanggapi penghentian sementara perdagangan, Wakil Presiden Muhammad Jusuf Kalla mengatakan, hal tersebut merupakan sesuatu yang lumrah dan tak bisa dihindari.

Sementara itu, semalam Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono memimpin rapat terbatas (ratas) yang membahas langkah pemerintah menyusul dihentikannya perdagangan saham di BEI. Dalam ratas itu hadir Wapres Jusuf Kalla, Deputi Gubernur Senior Miranda S Goeltom, Menteri Keuangan ad interim yang dijabat Menneg BUMN Sofyan Djalil, Menteri Sekretaris Negara Hatta Rajasa, dan Ketua Umum Kadin MS Hidayat. Hingga pukul 23.30 ratas masih berlangsung.

Akumulasi 22,17 persen

Anjloknya perdagangan saham membuat akumulasi penurunan IHSG selama tiga hari terakhir mencapai 22,17 persen. Senin lalu, IHSG anjlok 10,03 persen dan Selasa turun lagi 1,76 persen.

Jika dibandingkan dengan level IHSG pada 2 Januari 2008 yang berada di level 2.731,51, posisi IHSG kemarin telah merosot 46,85 persen. Atau jika dengan posisi tertinggi IHSG pada 9 Januari 2008 pada level 2.830,26 telah turun 48,70 persen.

Beberapa saat setelah suspensi, BEI menggelar konferensi pers mendadak. Seusai konferensi pers, BEI juga melakukan pertemuan tertutup dengan petinggi semua perusahaan sekuritas di Indonesia. BEI belum dapat memastikan sampai kapan perdagangan akan dihentikan.

Pengamat pasar modal, Adler Manurung, menilai koreksi mendalam terhadap IHSG kemarin tak hanya dipengaruhi sentimen negatif investor terhadap pelemahan indeks bursa global menyusul krisis finansial di AS. Koreksi itu juga sangat dipengaruhi transaksi naked short selling yang dilakukan spekulan.

Transaksi naked short selling adalah aksi menjual saham oleh investor yang sama sekali tidak memiliki saham dan jaminan berupa dana di perusahaan sekuritas. Investor melakukan transaksi itu dengan harapan harga saham akan turun untuk kemudian dibeli kembali pada hari yang sama.

Sekalipun dilarang oleh Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan, Adler memastikan transaksi itu marak terjadi di pasar modal Indonesia karena pelakunya tidak pernah diungkap dan ditindak.

Adapun sejumlah investor menilai kejatuhan bursa kemarin juga sangat dipengaruhi oleh penjualan saham secara paksa (forced sell) terkait dengan transaksi margin para investor. Dalam hal ini, perusahaan sekuritas menjual saham investor yang punya pinjaman pada harga berapa pun.

Komaruddin Muchtar, seorang investor, bercerita, ”Tadi sore saya dihubungi broker dan bilang saham-saham saya akan dijual paksa berapa pun harganya. Ini jelas akan membuat indeks makin terpuruk,” kata Komaruddin.

Pengamat pasar modal, Yanuar Rizky, memperkirakan, jual paksa ini masih akan terus terjadi saat perdagangan saham akan dibuka kembali. Menurut dia, jual paksa menjadi marak terjadi karena selama ini perusahaan sekuritas berlomba-lomba memberikan pinjaman dana kepada investor untuk membeli saham tanpa jaminan memadai.

”Saat saham jatuh seperti sekarang, broker tidak mau ambil risiko. Saham-saham investor pun diobral. Ini adalah akibat dari pasar kita yang sangat liar, tidak pernah diawasi,” katanya.

Pengamat pasar modal, Felix Sindhunata, mengatakan, BEI dan Bapepam-LK harus segera menjelaskan kepada publik apa yang terjadi. Menurut dia, anjloknya IHSG lebih dari 20 persen selama tiga hari menunjukkan ada sesuatu yang salah dalam struktur dan mekanisme investasi di BEI. (har/osd/REI)

har;osd;rei

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/10/09/03003528/investor.panik.perdagangan.dihentikan

Wall Street Mungkin Menolak Talangan US$ 700 Miliar

2008-10-04T22:29:00.000-07:00

Tempo Interaktif
Minggu, 05 Oktober 2008 | 10:36 WIB

TEMPO Interaktif, Jakarta: Kekhawatiran meningkat bahwa bank-bank dan institusi keuangan Wall Street akan menolak berpartisipasi dalam paket talangan US$ 700 miliar pemerintah AS. Hal ini akan membuat pasar global dan perekonomian dunia dalam kondisi berbahaya beberapa bulan mendatang.

"Ada perasaan yang berkembang bahwa bank-bank mungkin memutuskan bahwa hal itu terlalu berat," kata Thomas Caldwell, Kepala dan CEO Caldwell Financial, manajer dana US$ 1 miliar lebih.

Dua minggu sebelumnya semua mata di pasar memfokuskan pada Kongres AS dan upayanya untuk meloloskan peket talangan yang diajukan Menteri Keuangan Henry Paulson. Paket itu memungkinkan pemerintah AS untuk membeli aset-aset terkait hipotek milik bank-bank Amerika, yang secara teori membebaskan pasar kredit dan mendorong perdagangan global berputar kembali.

Ahad lalu, setelah undang-undang ditolak DPR, lebih dari US$ 1 triliun tersapu nilainya dari pasar AS saat pasar dilanda kepanikan. Undang-undang itu akhirnya lolos Jumat sore, setelah memasukkan pembebasan pajak US$ 149 miliar dan aturan tegas untuk bank-bank yang berpartisipasi.

Namun analis Wall Street meyakini penambahan begitu banyak aturan dalam undang-undang itu akan menghalangi partisipan potensial.

Salah satu elemen yang paling tidak menarik adalah penahanan penerimaan eksekutif di bank-bank yang berpartisipasi dalam paket talangan. Hal ini meliputi pembatasan upah terkait saham dan pelarangan penerimaan-penerimaan nonkontrak lainnya bagi eksekutif.

"Saya pikir aturan gado-gado ini cukup untuk membuat para eksekutif menolak berpartisipasi," ujar Caldwell.

Sumber yang dekat dengan Goldman Sachs dan Merrill Lynch mengindikasikan bank-bank itu mungkin tidak berpartisipasi dalam program talangan saat berkembang pandangan di Wall Street bahwa pasar akan bangkit dari dasar.

Para analis juga percaya bahwa keberadaan pemerintah sebagai sumber pembiayaan terakhir akan cukup untuk membuat pasar kredit berputar lagi, dan sejumlah bank tidak perlu ambil bagian terhadap aturan untuk sukses.

Wall Street mengakhiri minggu terburuknya dalam tujuh tahun hari Jumat. Indeks rata-rata industri Dow Jones ditutup melemah 157 poin pada 10.325,38.

Senate approves bailout after revisions, 74-25

2008-10-02T01:26:00.000-07:00

Tax breaks are added to the Wall Street package, but House passage is far from certain.

By Maura Reynolds, Richard Simon and Nicole Gaouette
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

LA Times, October 1, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted reluctantly but solidly in favor of a modified $700-billion Wall Street rescue plan Wednesday, but it remained uncertain whether the legislation -- even with a carefully designed package of tax breaks -- would withstand the fierce crosswinds of liberal and conservative resistance in the House later this week.

The measure passed the Senate 74 to 25, with a majority of Democrats and Republicans voting in favor -- among them presidential nominees Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain. The centerpiece of the legislation gives the government the authority to buy up billions of dollars of the "toxic" assets, primarily mortgage-backed securities, that have poisoned financial markets and threaten to contaminate the rest of the economy.

"This rescue package . . . is not for the titans of Wall Street. It's not for those whose greed got us here, who chose greed over prudence," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "It's for families across Nevada and across America who are fighting to keep their jobs, save their homes and make one paycheck last until another one."

The Senate action came two days after House members, facing reelection in a few weeks and confronted by calls and letters from angry constituents, rejected an earlier version of the plan and sent the stock market into a tailspin. The House will take up the new bill Friday morning.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the package approved by the Senate had a "much better chance" of passing the House than the measure that was defeated Monday by a vote of 228 to 205. But he said he was "not taking anything for granted."

"I do think that the big [stock market] drop on Monday really had a chilling effect on a lot of our members and a lot of their constituents," Boehner said on Fox News.

The market reaction, compounded by opinion polls suggesting that the public was more confused by the plan than opposed to it, led the Senate to add provisions in hope of attracting enough votes to pass both chambers this week.

Some additions were meant to appeal to a broad range of Americans, such as a hike in the limit for federally insured bank deposits to $250,000 from the current $100,000 and the move to shield 24 million households from paying the alternative minimum tax.

Others were aimed at narrower interests to win the votes of specific lawmakers, such as a tax break to encourage Hollywood studios to do more filming in the United States.

The tax provisions added more than $100 billion to the cost of the plan. From the original three-page proposal by the Treasury Department, the bill has swelled to 451 pages.

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the second-ranking Democrat in the House, said he expected many GOP lawmakers to find the tax and deposit insurance provisions appealing. "Clearly we have said all along that passing this bill sooner is better than passing this bill later," Hoyer said.

The presence of both presidential candidates added pressure on senators to go along with the man from their party who might occupy the White House in a matter of months.

"To Democrats and Republicans who've opposed this plan, I say, step up to the plate. Let's do what's right for the country," Obama said in a speech on the Senate floor.

McCain walked into the Senate chamber nine minutes after Obama had arrived and swept by the Illinois Democrat. A few minutes later, Obama crossed to the other side of the floor and the two shook hands and exchanged a brief greeting. The Arizona senator did not address the chamber.

Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, voted "aye," as did California's senators, Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson and President Bush lauded the Senate's action and urged House members to follow suit.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said the new version of the bill contained a biodiesel tax credit he had championed, but he still planned to vote against the measure again. However, other lawmakers may be swayed, he said.

"I think that they probably put enough sweeteners in it that they will be able to get the votes," King said in an interview.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) was similarly unpersuaded. "The Senate measure has changed my position from 'No' to 'Heck no,' " he said. "With the Senate amendment, the bailout has gone from bad to worse, $105 billion more in public debt worse."

Some of the changes appeared aimed at enticing specific lawmakers to change their votes from no to yes.

For instance, the bill now includes a provision to boost insurance coverage of mental illness, a priority of Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.), who voted against the bailout bill Monday. It also includes a tax benefit for bicycle commuting sought by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), also a no vote on Monday. And there's an extension of the renewable energy tax credit, a priority of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who wants to make Arizona the "Silicon Valley of solar energy."

The tax breaks and accounting rule changes for Hollywood were apparently aimed at two Southern California Democrats -- Rep. Adam B. Schiff of Burbank and Rep. Brad Sherman of Sherman Oaks -- who voted against the plan. Sherman, who led the defection of a group of Democratic skeptics, insisted that he would not be enticed to vote for the rescue plan.

"The one thing that's been proven is the absolute fear mongering that's being used to drive us is false," Sherman complained. "I've seen members turn to each other and say, 'If we don't pass this bill, we're going to have martial law in the United States.' "

Polls conducted in recent days show that although two-thirds of Americans are angry about the rescue plan, they tend to think the bill is "the right thing to do." A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center showed 38% to 45% of the public favoring the plan.

On the Senate floor, it was clear that lawmakers, even those from the president's party, were still of two minds.

"If we don't get the credit markets working again, we will face a dramatic downturn of proportions which we have not seen in my lifetime in the United States of America and in our economy," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), his party's lead negotiator. "And it is something that we should not risk. We should not roll those dice."

But others dug in their heels.

"Many around here are finding comfort in the notion that 'something is better than nothing.' I believe that is a false choice," said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Banking Committee. "The choice we faced was between pursuing an informed response or panic. . . . Unfortunately, we chose panic."

http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/la-fi-bailout2-2008oct02,0,1307485.story

maura.reynolds@latimes.com

richard.simon@latimes.com

nicole.gaouette@latimes.com

Menemukan Akar Instabilitas Finansial

2008-09-27T17:42:00.000-07:00

Kompas, Minggu 28 September 2008 | 03:00 WIB

A PRASETYANTOKO

Buku ini menarik karena ketika ditulis pada 1986 nyaris tidak diperhatikan orang. Di-”kemas ulang” dalam terbitan baru tahun 2008, justru pemikirannya kemudian dianggap sangat relevan dengan situasi akhir-akhir ini, saat pasar finansial mengalami gejolak drastis.

Henry Kaufman, tokoh pasar modal kontemporer, memberi kata pembuka yang menegaskan relevansi pemikiran Minsky di hari ini. Demikian pula dua pengikut pemikirannya, Dimitri B Papadimitiou dan L Randall Wray, memberikan kontekstualisasi yang sangat tajam terhadap pemikiran Minsky.

Apa esensi pemikiran di dalam buku ini? Berbeda dengan pemikir di zamannya, Minsky mengajukan argumen pokok, instabilitas finansial sebenarnya berasal dari dalam dirinya sendiri (endogen) dan bukan dari luar (eksogen). Secara lebih eksplisit dia jelaskan, kekacauan ekonomi atau finansial bukanlah karena perang, kenaikan harga minyak, huru-hara sosial politik atau bencana alam. Tetapi karena sifat alamiahnya yang spekulatif.

Pandangan tentang sifat endogen instabilitas ini tidak biasa pada zamannya. Aliran yang lebih dominan pada waktu ini (hingga saat ini) justru menganggap uang dan sirkulasinya bersifat netral, maka harus dikelola secara ”bebas” sehingga menghasilkan sistem alokasi yang efisien.

Bagi pemikir monetarist ini, intervensi pada sirkulasi kapital menjadi sesuatu yang ditabukan. Sebaliknya, menurut Minsky, karena pada dasarnya sektor finansial memiliki sifat alamiah yang tidak stabil, maka perlu ”dikelola” melalui berbagai campur tangan. Dengan kata lain, intervensi merupakan keharusan.

Relevansi

Mengapa pemikiran Minsky relevan? Pasar finansial Amerika Serikat (AS) akhir-akhir ini diwarnai serangkaian gejolak mendebarkan. Menyusul pernyataan kebangkrutan lembaga keuangan terbesar keempat AS, Lehman Brothers, pasar Wall Street terguncang. Dampaknya seperti tsunami yang melibas perusahaan-perusahaan finansial besar lainnya.

Harga saham perusahaan keuangan Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs tiba-tiba merosot sebesar masing-masing 11 dan 16 persen. Dan, US Federal Reserve terpaksa harus menyelamatkan American International Group (AIG) dengan menggelontorkan uang sebesar 85 miliar dollar AS.

Korban serta biaya dari krisis subprime mortgage sudah terlalu banyak. Dimulai dengan penyelamatan Bear Stearns Co.Inc, kemudian disusul dengan Fannie Mae dan Freddie Mac, dan akhirnya raksasa Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, dan AIG.

Kebangkrutan perusahaan-perusahaan tersebut membawa dampak yang sistematis. Pasar credit derivatives dan structured finances terkena dampak langsung. Selebihnya, pasar keuangan pada umumnya mengalami guncangan, seperti dana pensiun, reksa dana, dan pasar obligasi. Ujung persoalan akhirnya sampai juga pada ekonomi riil dan daya beli konsumen. Diperkirakan, pusat gempa di pasar finansial AS ini akan menyebar ke lebih dari 100 negara di seluruh dunia. Sebuah gelombang masif yang mahadahsyat.

Terhadap gejolak tersebut, muncul pertanyaan serius, apa sebenarnya akar dari persoalan tersebut? Dan, bukankah dunia telah mengalami persoalan serupa berkali-kali, mengapa selalu berulang? Dulu pada tahun 1929, pasar modal AS diguncang oleh kepanikan yang berujung pada depresi besar (great depression) dunia. Masa-masa sulit tersebut telah mendera hampir semua negara di dunia. Pada tahun 1998, menyusul krisis yang terjadi di Rusia, sebuah perusahaan sekuritas besar, LTCM (Long-Term Capital Management), tumbang. Dan kini, dampak krisis subprime-mortgage merajalela.

Terkait dengan kekacauan pasar finansial AS tersebut, berbagai langkah penyelamatan dilakukan. Selain AIG, pemerintah juga menginjeksi Bear Stearns Co.Inc, Fannie Mae dan Freddie Mac. Mengapa mereka diselamatkan?

AIG disebut-sebut sebagai perusahaan asuransi terbesar di AS, sementara Fannie Mae dan Freddie Mac merupakan perusahaan yang bergerak di bidang pembiayaan perumahan paling besar. Jika perusahaan-perusahaan besar ini tidak diselamatkan, kekacauan akan semakin parah. Dengan kata lain, mereka terlalu besar untuk gagal (too big to fail).

Terkait dengan usaha penyelamatan tersebut, ada sebuah pertanyaan esensial yang mengusik. Bukankah pada akhirnya otoritas harus turun tangan juga menyelamatkan bisnis besar tersebut? Mengapa menunggu sampai terjadi kegagalan di pasar?

Inikah buntut dari pandangan bahwa negara hanya diperbolehkan masuk ketika pasar sudah gagal menyelesaikan persoalannya sendiri (market failure). Inikah model negara sebagai ”pemadam kebakaran”? Bukankah langkah-langkah penyelamatan ini tak lain sebuah intervensi? Dan, jika begitu, mengapa intervensi tidak dirancang untuk diimplementasikan pada sistem ekonomi sehingga kekacauan tidak perlu terjadi?

Pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini menjadi perhatian Minsky sudah sejak lama. Namun, pemikirannya dianggap menghambat perkembangan dinamika pasar finansial. Kini, ketika terbukti premis-premis yang disampaikan Minsky benar, bukunya dilakukan repackaging atau relevan untuk dikemas dan diterbitkan kembali.

Post-Keynesian

Buku Stabilizing an Unstable Economy mencoba menjelaskan mengapa ekonomi selalu mengandung gejolak dan instabilitas. Jawabannya, karena instabilitas disebabkan oleh perilaku finansial unit-unit ekonomi yang berada dalam ruang lingkup ekonomi tersebut.

Pemikirannya sangat dipengaruhi oleh Keynes tentang nilai investasi, ketidakpastian atas masa depan, perilaku spekulasi dan sifat binatang (animal spirit). Keynes pernah mengatakan ”dalam sebuah sistem ekonomi yang tidak stabil, sifat spekulasi mendominasi perusahaan-perusahaan”.

Bagi Minsky, instabilitas bersifat alamiah (natural) pada sebuah sistem perekonomian. Maka dari itu, ekonomi memang akan bergerak secara fluktuatif, kadang naik (boom), kadang surut (bust). Dan, sifat pasang surut ini digerakkan oleh kondisi keuangan unit-unit ekonomi (perusahaan, bank, lembaga sekuritas, dan sebagainya).

Ada 3 tipe utama, perilaku para agen ekonomi. Pertama, Hedge, ketika perusahaan bisa melunasi seluruh kewajibannya dari hasil operasional usahanya. Kedua, Speculative, terjadi kalau untuk melunasi kewajibannya perusahaan harus utang dulu, mengingat hasil operasinya tidak cukup untuk menutup utang. Ketiga, Ponzi, yaitu manakala untuk menutup kewajibannya perusahaan harus menjual seluruh asetnya terlebih dahulu (likuidasi).

Sistem finansial modern memungkinkan para pelaku ekonomi bersikap spekulatif dan karena itu dengan sangat mudah berubah menjadi ponzi. Apa yang terjadi pada Lehman dan perusahaan finansial lainnya persis sama dengan apa yang dikemukakan oleh Minsky. Seandainya mereka berhati-hati (hedge), maka tidak akan terjadi kekacauan seperti ini. Akan tetapi, karena hampir semua perusahaan bersifat spekulatif, maka dengan mudah bisa berubah menjadi ponzi. Dan, pada titik ini, pemerintah harus turun tangan menyelamatkan mereka.

Jadi, tidak berlebihan jika dikatakan kalau mereka untung hasilnya ”diprivatisasi” (dimiliki privat), tetapi jika rugi, bebannya dibagikan kepada pihak lain (sosialisasi). Hal yang sama sebenarnya terjadi pada kasus Bantuan Likuiditas Bank Indonesia (BLBI).

Krisis justru disebabkan oleh ulah para pelaku usaha yang tidak berhati-hati melakukan kebijakan keuangan. Tetapi ketika kondisi keuangan mereka jebol, APBN-lah yang harus menanggungnya. Lebih parah lagi, bantuan itu pun dikorupsi. Jadi, kurang apa lagi untuk menyeret para pelaku pembobolan BLBI ke meja hijau? Kasus ini mendesak dibuka kembali.

Mungkin inilah saatnya untuk memikirkan ulang format kebijakan ekonomi, baik pada level mikro (perusahaan), nasional, maupun global. Mungkinkah sistem yang mengandalkan fundamentalisme pasar seperti terjadi selama ini tidak akan bertahan lagi? Inikah saatnya kembali menata arsitektur baru sistem finansial global, di mana pola intervensi negara menjadi salah satu tulang punggungnya?

Banyak pengamat mulai mengatakan, rentetan krisis belakangan ini telah membawa kita kembali para era-Keynesianism. Dan, Minsky adalah seorang post-keynesianist sejati. Pemikirannya memang patut dikemas kembali karena justru begitu relevan akhir-akhir ini.

A Prasetyantoko Menyelesaikan Program Doktor Ilmu Ekonomi di ENS-Lyon bekerja sama dengan ESCP-EAP, European School of Management; Pengajar di Unika Atma Jaya, Jakarta

A PRASETYANTOKO

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/09/28/01125694/menemukan.akar.instabilitas.finansial

KAPITALISME: AMERIKA DAN CINA

2008-09-20T21:09:00.000-07:00

I.Wibowo

Mulai tanggal 15 September 2008 hingga seminggu kemudian seluruh dunia gemetar menyaksikan runtuhnya Lehman Brohters, disusul Merill Lynch, diikuti oleh AIG, dan dikhawatirkan Goldman Sachs serta Morgan Stanley akan segera mengiktui. Orang di seluruh dunia menjadi cemas. Indeks pasar saham di seluruh dunia berguguran. Ada kekhawatiran dunia akan tenggelam lagi dalam krisis seperti “Depresi Besar” pada tahun 1929!

Pemerintah Amerika mula-mula bersikap sesuai dengan textbook, yaitu tidak ambil tindakan. Maka Lehman Brothers Co. yang sudah berumur 198 tahun itu bertekuk lutut, sementara Merill Lynch dilego kepada Bank of America. Pemerintah Amerika percaya bahwa dengan ini pasar akan mengadakan self-correction. Ternyata keadaannya makin memburuk. Giliran AIG, perusahaan asuransi terbesar, menyatakan akan menyerah kalah. Pada titik inilah Pemerintah Amerika turun tangan, dan menyelamatkan AIG dengan menyuntikkan dana sebesar US$ 79 milyar. Pemerintah berpendapat bahwa tindakan menyelamatkan AIG adalah demi kepentingan rakyat Amerika yang menggantungkan pensiun mereka, tetapi juga demi menghentikan kepanikan di seluruh mengingat begitu besarnya usaha AIG. Tapi persis seminggu kemudian President Bush mengumumkan bahwa Pemerintah Federal akan mengambil inisiatif, dengan memakai uang pembayar pajak, untuk menyelamatkan bank-bank yang terancam gulung terikat. Besar bantuan itu US$ 700 milyar, malah bisa mencapai US$ 1 trilyun.

Dengan ini berakhirlah “pasar bebas” di Amerika. Pasar bebas ternyata harus diintervensi oleh negara agar bisa berfungsi secara normal lagi. Hal ini tentu saja segera mengingatkan peristiwa Depresi Besar ketika Presiden Roosevelt juga mengambil langkah untuk mengambil tindakan untuk menyelamatkan ekonomi yang sudah ambruk. Maka tidak heran bahwa orang mulai berbisik-bisik bahwa John Maynard Keynes telah bangkit dari kubur, begitu pula Keynesianisme. Padahal pada bulan Oktober yang akan datang akan diresmikan Milton Friedman Institute di Universitas Chicago, tempat untuk menebarkan dan membiakkan gagasan pasar bebas!

Cina juga

Pada saat yang bersamaan juga terjadi “market failure” di Cina. Pada tanggal 9 September 2008 tersiar berita bahwa susu buatan Pabrik Susu “Sanlu” tercemar dengan zat yang amat beracun dan berbahaya. Selang bebarapa hari diketahi bahwa susu yang telah dikonsumsi oleh bayi-bayi di seluruh Cina itu benar-benar telah menimbulkan malapetaka. Sekurang-kurangnya tiga bayi sudah tewas, dan sekian puluh yang mengalami gagal ginjal, dan sekian ribu yang mengalami aneka sakit sehubungan dengan pencernaan. Setelah diperiksa lebih lanjut, ternyata bukan hanya satu perusahaan saja yang menghasilkan susu yang tercemar. Ada sekurang-kurangnya 22 perusahaan lain yang melakukan tindakan tak bermoral itu.

Pemerintah Cina juga mula-mula bertindak dengan memecat kepala perusahaan, lalu juga bupati tempat produksi susu itu. Ketika ternyata kasusnya telah merembet lebih luas, Pemerintah Cina mengambil serangkaian tindakan untuk memeriksa semua pabrik susu di Cina. Tetapi terlambat sebab susu dengan aneka merk yang tercemar telah dikonsumsi oleh bayi-bayi di Cina, bahkan mungkin oleh bayi-bayi di Hong Kong, mungkin oleh bayi-bayi di luar negeri. Sampai kini Pemerintah Cina masih mencari cara yang tepat untuk mengatasi “krisis susu” ini, sebab tanpa tindakan yang meyakinkan dikhawatirkan bukan hanya usaha susu buatan Cina yang akan runtuh, tetapi juga seluruh usaha makanan jadi. Kalau ini terjadi, memang ekspor makanan jadi Cina juga terpengaruh, mungkin sekali tidak akan laku di seluruh dunia.

Self-regulating market?

Dalam dua kasus ini – krisis finansial dan krisis susu – nampak jelas bahwa pasar tidak bisa mengatur dirinya sendiri (self-regulating). Pasar keuangan di Amerika Serikat sebenarnya sudah pernah dikerangkeng oleh Presiden Roosevelt segera sesudah terjadinya Depresi Besar, tetapi oleh Presiden Clinton dilepaskan lagi. Dalam jaman globalisasi seperti saat ini liberalisasi pasar keuangan memang sangat diinginkan oleh para pengusaha dan spekulan, tetapi orang tahu bahwa situasi ini penuh risiko. Pasar tidak bisa mengatur diri sendiri, apalagi mengendalikan diri sendiri. Siapa yang bisa (dan berani) mengatur para spekulan dan fund managers?

Di Cina, situasi pasar bebas juga menghasilkan kekacauan. Para pelaku pasar (pengusaha) dengan tenang mencampurkan bahan kimia yang terlarang dalam susu untuk mengeruk keuntungan besar. Hal ini bahkan dilakukan oleh perusahaan yang ber-joint venture dengan perusahaan multinasional dari Selandia Baru. Sama dengan di Amerika, keuntungan jangka pendek menuntun pengusaha-pengusaha itu untuk mengeruk keuntungan, tidak peduli pada bahaya kematian yang ditimbulkan. Pasar di Cina, sama dengan di Amerika, tidak mampu mengatur, apalagi mengendalikan kualitas susu. Perusahaan akan bertindak setelah terjadi kecelakaan bahkan malapetaka besar. Pada saat itu negara mengadakan intervensi, tapi sudah terlambat. Korban sudah terlanjur berjatuhan.

Negara datang lagi

Kapitalisme di Amerika dan di Cina mengandalkan pasar bebas dan peran pengusaha swasta. Tidak ada tempat bagi negara. Kalau toh ada peran negara, ia tidak boleh masuk, apalagi mengintervensi. Para ekonom neo-liberal tetap mempertahankan ajaran ini seolah-olah sebuah dogma. Kalau terjadi sesuatu yang salah atau kacau, mereka langsung mengatakan bahwa itu karena kesalahan oknum. John McCain ada di garis pemikiran ini ketika dia mengatakan seandainya dia presiden dia akan memecat Chirstopher Fox, penanggung jawab pasar saham. Ini pula yang dilakukan di Cina, dengan memecati para pejabat yang dikatakan “bertanggung-jawab.” Mereka lupa bahwa orang ini adalah bagian dari sebuah sistem besar yang sering disebut “mekanisme pasar” itu.

Pasar bebas kini telah terkubur hidup-hidup, bahkan di tempat yang disebut-sebut sebagai “sarang kapitalisme.” Ketika pasar sekarat, tanpa malu-malu, mereka minta tolong kepada negara. Negara pun datang lagi seraya mengayunkan langkah besarnya. Betapapun Presiden Bush mencoba beretorika, yang dilakukan adalah tindakan penyelamatan oleh negara. Hu Jintao dengan ucapan yang implisit, juga melabrak bawahan-bawahannya supaya mereka tidak berpangku tangan.

$700 Billion Is Sought for Wall Street in Massive Bailout

2008-09-20T16:43:00.000-07:00

The New York Times

September 21, 2008
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration on Saturday formally proposed to Congress what could become the largest financial bailout in United States history, requesting unfettered authority for the Treasury Department to buy up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets.

The proposal, not quite three pages long, was stunning for its stark simplicity. It would raise the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion. And it would place no restrictions on the administration other than requiring semiannual reports to Congress, granting the Treasury secretary unprecedented power to buy and resell mortgage debt.

Staff members from Treasury and the House Financial Services and Senate banking committees immediately began meeting on Capitol Hill, where negotiations were likely to be complicated but quick. Democratic Congressional leaders have pledged to approve legislation by the end of this week.

Even as talks got underway, there were signs of how very much in flux the plan remained. The administration was suggesting it might adjust its proposal, to purchase assets from financial institutions based in the United States, to enable foreign firms with United States affiliates to make use of it as well.

The ambitious effort to transfer the bad debts of Wall Street, at least temporarily, into the obligations of American taxpayers, was first put forward by the administration late last week, after a series of bold interventions on behalf of ailing private firms seemed unlikely to prevent a crash of world financial markets.

A $700 billion expenditure on distressed mortgage-related assets would be roughly what the country has spent so far in direct costs on the Iraq war and more than the Pentagon’s total yearly budget appropriation. Divided across the population, it would amount to more than $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

Whatever is spent will add to a budget deficit already projected at more than $500 billion next year. And it comes on top of the $85 billion government rescue of the insurance giant, American International Group, and a plan to spend up to $200 billion to shore up the mortgage finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“This is a big package, because it was a big problem,” President Bush said on Saturday at a news conference at the White House after meeting with President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia. “I will tell our citizens and continue to remind them that the risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package, and that, over time, we’re going to get a lot of the money back.”

Mr. Bush also sought to portray the plan as benefiting every American. “The government needed to send a clear signal that we understood the instability could ripple throughout and affect the working people and the average family, and we weren’t going to let that happen.”

Key Democratic lawmakers have made clear that they want to include in the legislation at least some assurance that the administration would use its new role, as the owner of large amounts of mortgage debt, to move aggressively to help hundreds of thousands of troubled borrowers at risk of foreclosure.

A program to help refinance mortgages — including an $800 billion increase in the national debt limit — was approved in July. But financing for it largely depended on fees paid by the mortgage finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have been placed into a government conservatorship.

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said his staff had already begun working with the Senate banking committee to draft additions to the administration’s proposal.

Mr. Frank said Democrats were particularly intent on limiting the huge pay packages for corporate executives whose firms seek aid under the new plan — raising the prospect of a contentious battle with the White House.

“There are going to be federal tax dollars buying up some of the bad paper,” Mr. Frank said. “They should accept some compensation guidelines, particularly to get rid of the perverse incentives where it’s ‘heads I win, tails I break even.’ ”

Mr. Frank said Congressional leaders were also considering other measures, perhaps including a wider economic stimulus initiative, either as part of the administration’s plan or as part of the budget resolution that Congress must pass before adjourning at the end of the week.

Aides to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, the House majority leader, said they were reviewing the proposal.

Some Congressional Republicans warned Democrats not to overreach. “The administration has put forward a plan to help the American people and it is now incumbent on Congress to work together to solve this crisis,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader.

Mr. Boehner added: “Efforts to exploit this crisis for political leverage or partisan quid pro quo will only delay the economic stability that families, seniors, and small businesses deserve.”

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who attended emergency meetings with the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, on Capitol Hill last week, described the proposal as a good start, but said that it did little for regular Americans.

“This is a good foundation of a plan that can stabilize markets quickly,” Mr. Schumer said in a statement. “But it includes no visible protection for taxpayers or homeowners. We look forward to talking to Treasury to see what, if anything, they have in mind in these two areas.”

In Florida, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic presidential nominee, said he would press for a broader economic stimulus initiative to be part of the bailout plan for financial firms.

Aides said Mr. Obama was still reviewing the administration’s proposal. But in Daytona Beach, Fla., he told voters, “We have to make sure that whatever plan our government comes up with works not just for Wall Street, but for Main Street.”

He added: “We have to make sure it helps folks cope with rising prices, and sparks job creation, and helps homeowners stay in their homes. That’s the kind of help folks need right now.”

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, issued a statement on Saturday saying he was reviewing the administration’s plan. He also urged the administration and lawmakers to consider his own plan for creating a trust within the Treasury Department to aid ailing mortgage lenders and other financial institutions.

“This financial crisis requires leadership and action in order to restore a sound foundation to financial markets, get our economy on its feet, and eliminate this burden on hardworking middle-class Americans,” Mr. McCain said in his statement.

If adopted, the bailout plan would sharply raise the stakes for the new administration on the appointment of a new Treasury secretary.

The administration’s plan would allow the Treasury to hire staff and engage outside firms to help manage its purchases. And officials said that the administration envisioned enlisting several outside firms to help run the effort to buy up mortgage-related assets.

Mindful of a potential political fight, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke held a series of conference calls with members of Congress on Friday to begin selling them on the proposal, and to assure them that action was needed not just to help Wall Street but everyday Americans as well.

They emphasized that the risk of steep declines in worldwide markets posed a grave risk to all Americans, especially their retirement plans and college savings for children but also their access to consumer credit including auto loans.

Mr. Bernanke, for instance, pointed out that many Americans have savings invested in money market funds, which were at risk of unexpected losses.

It was clear after those conversations that lawmakers were roughly divided into four groups. Republicans most supportive of the administration were in favor of approving the plan as swiftly as possible and with relatively few changes.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said in a statement: “This proposal is, and should be kept, simple and clear.” He added, “Simply put, now is not the time for partisan plans or pet projects.”

Some Democrats, including lawmakers like Mr. Frank and Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and the chairman of the banking committee, were adamant about including provisions to promote government action to stabilize real estate prices and help troubled borrowers refinance their mortgages.

Still another group of Democrats was pushing for a wider stimulus package that would direct help more directly and immediately to Main Street, perhaps including an increase in unemployment benefits and investments in infrastructure projects, including bridges and roads, that would help to create jobs.

A fourth, smaller group of lawmakers was highly critical and in some cases adamantly opposed to the plan. That group included including Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, and Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont.

“The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America,” Mr. Bunning declared on Friday. “The action proposed today by the Treasury Department will take away the free market and institute socialism in America. The American taxpayer has been misled throughout this economic crisis. The government on all fronts has failed the American people miserably.”

It is far from clear how much distressed debt the government will actually end up purchasing under the plan, though it seemed likely that the $700-billion figure was large enough to send a reassuring message to the jittery markets. There are estimates that firms are carrying up to $1 trillion or more in bad mortgage-related assets.

Lehman Can Sell to Barclays

NEW YORK (AP) — A bankruptcy judge decided just after midnight Saturday that Lehman Brothers can sell its investment banking and trading businesses to Barclays, the first major step to wind down the nation’s fourth-largest investment bank.

United States Bankruptcy Judge James Peck gave his decision in a courtroom packed with lawyers at the end of an eight-hour hearing, which capped a week of financial turmoil.

The deal was said to be worth $1.75 billion earlier in the week but the value was in flux after lawyers announced changes to the terms on Friday. It may now be worth closer to $1.35 billion, which includes the $960 million price tag on Lehman’s Midtown Manhattan office tower.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed the biggest bankruptcy in United States history Monday, after Barclays PLC declined to buy the investment bank in its entirety. The British bank will take control of Lehman units that employ about 9,000 employees in the United States.

Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting from Daytona Beach, Fla.; Michael Cooper, Carl Hulse, David Stout and Stephen Labaton contributed.

Bush can share the blame for financial crisis

2008-09-20T15:36:00.000-07:00

International Herald Tribune

By Mark Landler and Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Saturday, September 20, 2008

WASHINGTON: For his entire presidency, George W. Bush has tried to avoid the fate of his father: brought low by a feeble economy. Now, as the financial crisis radiates far beyond Wall Street, Bush faces an even grimmer prospect: being blamed, at least in part, for an economic breakdown.

"There will be ample opportunity to debate the origins of this problem," Bush said Friday in a televised address from the White House Rose Garden. "Now is the time to solve it."

But in Washington and on Wall Street, the debate has already begun. And while economists and other experts say there are plenty of culprits: Democrats and Republicans in Congress, the Federal Reserve, an overzealous home-lending industry, banks, and also Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton - they do agree that the Bush administration bears part of the blame.

These experts, from both political parties, say Bush's early personnel choices and overarching antipathy toward regulation created a climate that, if it did not trigger the turmoil, almost certainly aggravated it. The president's first two Treasury secretaries, for instance, lacked the kind of Wall Street expertise that might have helped them raise red flags about the use of complex financial instruments at the heart of the crisis.

To his credit, Bush accurately foresaw the danger posed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and began calling as early as 2002 for greater regulation of the mortgage giants. But experts say the administration could have done even more to curb excesses in the housing market, and much more to police Wall Street, which transmitted those problems around the world.

In retrospect, "it would have helped for the Bush administration to empower the folks at Treasury and the Federal Reserve and the comptroller of the currency and the FDIC to look at these issues more closely," said Vince Reinhardt, a former Federal Reserve economist now at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research organization here. Reinhardt said it would also have helped "for Congress to have held hearings."

Instead, voices inside the administration who favored tougher policing of Wall Street found themselves with few supporters. William Donaldson, a former Wall Street executive with respected Republican credentials who became chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission under Bush, quit in 2005 after facing resistance from the White House and Republican members of the panel, who criticized his support for stiffer regulations on mutual funds and hedge funds.

Today, even those sympathetic to Bush say he cannot disentangle himself from a home-lending industry run amok or a banking industry that mortgaged its future on toxic loans.

"The crisis definitely happened on their watch," said Kenneth Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard University who advises the Republican presidential candidate John McCain. "This is eight years into the Bush administration. There was a lot of time to deal with it."

To some extent, Bush was simply following a deregulatory pattern set by Clinton. Perhaps the most significant recent deregulation of the banking industry - the landmark act that allowed commercial banks to expand into other financial activities, like investment banking and insurance - was signed into law by Clinton in 1999.

Bush also inherited a culture of borrowing and a frothy housing market that has become "deeply embedded in the American psyche," Rogoff said. And Reinhardt said the markets seemed to be doing so well that few analysts, either in government or the private sector, had a critical eye.

"When everybody is doing better," Rogoff said, "it is difficult to see the underlying weaknesses."

Still, the White House, in the view of critics, fostered a free-market hothouse in which these excesses were able to flower. It avoided regulation of banks and mortgage brokers, leaving much of that work to the Federal Reserve, which, under Alan Greenspan, showed little appetite for regulation. By the time Bush's current Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson Jr., proposed an overhaul of regulations governing the financial sector in April, the storm was already brewing.

The administration did push hard on Capitol Hill to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to find itself stymied by Congress. But the administration's intense focus on fending off what it foresaw as a looming housing crisis did not extend to the proliferation of fiendishly complex mortgage-backed securities, said Harvey Rosen, an economist who served on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, briefly as its chairman.

"Maybe there should have been," Rosen said, "but we were focused more on the fact that if these entities just held plain-vanilla mortgage-backed securities, it was still a disaster in the making."

Beyond its deregulatory bent, some economists argue that the administration's fiscal and tax policies made the United States more dependent on foreign capital, which fueled the bubble in housing prices.

"A different Treasury would have taken a different approach," said Lawrence Summers, who served as Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration. "I don't think the economy has been well-managed, and that has certainly been crucial for the problems we're facing."

The White House and Congress wanted to make housing affordable to more Americans, and freeing up the lending markets was a way to do that. As Rogoff said, "It was a market-based way to help poor people. There was an incredible belief in free markets."

For all that faith, Bush's first two Treasury secretaries, Paul O'Neill and John Snow, came from top jobs in industry, not Wall Street. They were viewed in Washington as advocating the interests of business, and being less comfortable with the mysteries of the markets.

Neither was seen as having much influence with the White House, and the Treasury lost some of the primacy in economic policy it had enjoyed under Summers and his predecessor, Robert Rubin. O'Neill and Snow declined to be interviewed for this article.

"The primary agency responsible for keeping an eye on these things is, and should be, the Treasury Department, and I think the president erred in the first place by appointing two secretaries who had no background in finance," said Bruce Bartlett, a Republican economist who was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan and an official in the Treasury Department under President George H.W. Bush.

"If we had had a Treasury that was fully supported by the White House," Bartlett said, "and a Treasury secretary such as Hank Paulson who was really attuned to what was going on in the financial markets, maybe some of these things could have been perceived in advance."

The White House did name people well-versed in the markets to other posts, not least the chairmanship of the Securities and Exchange Commission. But Bush's first SEC chairman - Harvey Pitt, a prominent securities lawyer - was brought down by political missteps. Pitt was replaced by Donaldson, who quit in 2005.

Critics, including McCain, say the SEC has been less active under its current chairman, Christopher Cox, a former Republican congressman from California. It has spent less on enforcement and levied less in fines on wrongdoers, according to the Government Accountability Office.

"You can't overestimate what happens when you encourage regulators to believe that the goal of regulation is not to regulate," said Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University.

In other areas, the Bush administration's failures seem more a case of inaction. The administration, economists said, did little to curb the practices of mortgage brokers, who are regulated by the states. But Democrats in Congress were equally to blame for this, these economists said.

"The Democrats pushed affordable housing goals, even in the face of evidence that people who got the loans shouldn't have gotten them," said Robert Litan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a research organization in Washington. "The no-money-down loans of 2005 and 2006 were a key part of the problem."

"I blame the Democrats for demanding that Fannie Mae keep buying these loans," said Litan, who was a budget official in the Clinton administration. "I blame the administration for going along with it."

White House officials note that the administration did propose reforms of real estate settlement procedures and the Federal Housing Authority, two areas it had identified as posing the greatest systemic risk to markets. Democrats in Congress, they said, blocked these efforts.

When Bush named Paulson to replace Snow in 2006, the Treasury Department finally got an expert in markets. But early on, his focus was on improving the competitiveness of the U.S. financial sector, which he feared was losing ground to Europe and Asia.

Will the bailout work?

2008-09-19T15:57:00.001-07:00

Analysis
By Steve Schifferes
Economics reporter, BBC News, Wall Street, New York

President Bush on ''a pivotal moment'' in the US economy

The enormity of the financial crisis now engulfing Wall Street has led the Bush administration to abandon its free-market principles and announce a $500bn bail-out package to buy up distressed financial assets.

At the same time, to stem growing panic among individual investors, the Treasury also plans to offer gurantees for the $3.2 trillion in money market mutual funds, which many people had treated as cash.

The rescue plan may still face significant political and financial obstacles.

With Congress set to adjourn next week for the election season, time is short to work out the details of the plan and get it passed.

Congressional leaders, including many key Democrats, had already been considering such a rescue plan, and they indicated quick acceptance of the proposals.

On the sidelines, however, there is deep scepticism on both left and right - with conservative Republicans objecting to any more bail-outs, and many Democrats asking why we should help Wall Street rather than the four million people whose homes are being foreclosed, or repocessed.

And the presidential candidates, who are being left on the sidelines in the negotiations, are also reluctant participants in the process.

Both realise that a sizeable bail-out that commits the Federal government to significant new spending will severely limit their plans - either to cut taxes or to introduce a new health care plan - in the year after the election.

One model being talked about is the Reconstruction Finance Corporation introduced in the 1930s during the Depression. But it should be remembered that in 1933, President-elect Franklin Roosevelt refused to agree a bi-partisan deal with President Hoover to stave off the collapse of the entire US banking system, which shut down completely on the eve of his inauguration.

Who gains and who loses

Among the difficult questions about the rescue plan is how much it will cost the taxpayers, the banks, and the distressed homeowners.

Part of the answer is what price the US government pays for the distressed debt.

If it buys at book value, the banks will have gained and the taxpayer will have taken over the liability.

If, on the other hand, the government buys up the debt at distressed values, the government stands to gain if eventually some of the mortgage debt recovers its value.

And it is not clear how much leverage the US government will get over the banks in return for its investment.

In the 1980s Resolution Trust Company rescue, the government had the power to take over any distressed Savings and Loan bank and close it or sell its assets as necessary. T

his eventually meant that about half of the $400bn rescue package was recovered - but most of the banks closed for good.

It is also unclear how much specific benefits distressed homeowners will get.

The cost to the government could grow if tries to hold off repossessions on the 10% of all US home-owners with mortgages - but getting too tough to make sure everyone pays up could risk making the housing crisis work.

The government already has a plan to grant $300bn in extra mortgage help for households facing foreclosure, but the evidence so far is that the plan (which is scheduled to start on 1 October) was looking still-born, as private sector mortgage holders were resisting taking the 10% loss the government was insisting on.

Long term economic damage

The government hopes that its big new package will restore confidence in the markets and encourage banks to start lending again to individuals and businesses.

Certainly, the prospect of the credit markets seizing up further could have sent the US economy into a tail-spin.

But it is still not clear that the package will be big enough, or implemented quickly enough, to reassure private and commercial investors who are now very worried by the uncertainty over the future of the financial sector.

Tightening of credit for both wholesale and retail borrowers is likely to continue, as markets adjust to the higher risks they perceive.

And while the move might provide temporary relief to the US economy, they also pose some long-term challenges.

The increased borrowing by the government will have to be paid for - and with the growing reluctance of foreigners to hold US debt, it will ultimately mean higher savings, and less spending, for the US economy.

The cost of the rescue could also eventually push up the cost of borrowing as the Federal deficit grows, and thus weaken the long-term prospects for the economy.

And the higher debt could also eventually weaken the dollar, forcing the Fed to intervene to raise rates to prevent a sharp fall.

Although these are big risks, the shattering of confidence is the biggest problem.

And if these measures fail, it will fall to the next president to craft a package to rescue the economy.

Bush hails financial rescue plan

2008-09-19T15:57:00.000-07:00

Bush on ''a pivotal moment'' in the US economy

The US is set to take "unprecedented measures" to tackle the crisis gripping US financial markets, President George W Bush has said.

But he warned the moves, which include spending of billions of dollars to buy up bad debts, would risk "a significant amount" of taxpayers' money.

Legislation for the plan will be pushed through as soon as possible, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said.

The US took action after a week of turmoil on global money markets.

Stock markets around the world have endured a roller-coaster week as traders and investors fretted about the fall-out from the current credit crisis:

Central banks around the world pumping billions of dollars of extra funding into money markets on Thursday and Friday to ease the liquidity crisis
The US announcing further measures to shore up the markets, including a ban on short-selling and guarantees to temporarily insure money market deposits
Stock markets around the world rallying after a dire week on news of the US rescue plans - with the UK's FTSE 100 closing with its biggest one-day gain
Stock markets in Russia temporarily suspended again on Friday at the end of a week of wild swings and stop-go trading
Banking group Morgan Stanley reportedly looking for a partner amid concerns about its future

Recovery plans

A "bold" move was needed to restore the financial system's health, Mr Paulson insisted.

He added the Bush administration was stepping in with a plan to remove so-called "toxic debts" from US banks' balance sheets.

While he gave few details, he said federal lawmakers would meet over the weekend to thrash out legislation for the the programme which must be "large enough to have maximum impact".

The Treasury and the Fed have finally realised the depth and systemic nature of the crisis
John Ryding, economist

In the meantime, he said that the government would be stepping up action to increase the availability of capital for new home loans.

Once this difficult period was over, he said, the government's next task would be to overhaul bank regulations.

President Bush said swift, politically bipartisan action was needed to keep the US economy from grinding to a halt as problems sparked by the credit crisis had begun to spread through the entire financial system - leaving jobs, pensions and companies under threat.

"These are risks the US cannot afford to take. We must act now to protect economic health from serious risk," he added.

The US is facing "unprecedented challenges and we're responding with unprecedented action", he said.

Rescue moves

Earlier in the day, the government announced plans to guarantee US money market funds - mutual funds that typically invest in low-risk credit such as government bonds and are often used by pension funds - up to a value of $50bn, in a move to further restore confidence.

Confidence is essential to the smooth operation of our economy
President Bush

Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission temporarily banned "short-selling" in the stocks of 799 companies. Short-selling is a form of trading which effectively bets that the value of a company's shares will fall.

Reaction to the announcements was swift on money markets across the world, with Wall Street closing in positive territory while the London market ended the session with its biggest one day gain.

"The Treasury and the Fed have finally realised the depth and systemic nature of the crisis," said John Ryding, an economist at RDQ Economics

"We believe that these actions will constitute the wider firebreak that will contain the crisis."

Criticism

However, the proposals did draw criticism from Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

"The Federal Reserve should get back to its core business of responsibly managing our money supply and inflation," he told reporters.

Meanwhile, Democratic rival Barack Obama gave his backing to plans to give the Treasury department "broad authority" to deal with the crisis.

According to President Bush action will restore confidence to the US system, and "confidence is essential to the smooth operation of our economy".

Mounting fears that the credit crisis is beginning to spread out through the financial system have rocked shares and companies recently.

Investment giant Lehman Brothers collapsed this week, rival Merrill Lynch was bought out by Bank of America, and the US government has bailed out insurer AIG with an $85bn rescue package and state-backed mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Europe and Asia see U.S. as no longer practicing what it preaches

2008-09-17T14:31:00.001-07:00

By Nelson D. Schwartz

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

PARIS: Is the United States no longer the global beacon of unfettered, free-market capitalism?

In extending a last-minute $85 billion lifeline to AIG, the troubled insurer, Washington has not only turned away from decades of rhetoric about the virtues of the free market and the dangers of government intervention, it has also likely undercut future American efforts to promote such policies abroad.

"I fear the government has passed the point of no return," says Ron Chernow, a leading American financial historian. "We have the irony of a free-market administration doing things that the most liberal Democratic administration would never have been doing in its wildest dreams."

While they acknowledge the shock of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the bailout package for AIG on top of earlier government support for Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac has stunned even European policy makers accustomed to government intervention in the economy.

"For opponents of free markets in Europe and elsewhere, this is a wonderful opportunity to invoke the American example," said Mario Monti, the former antitrust chief at the European Commission. "They will say that even the standard-bearer of the market economy, the U.S, negates its fundamental principles in its behavior."

Monti noted that past financial crises in Asia, Russia, and Mexico brought government to the fore, "but this is the first time it's in the heart of capitalism, which is enormously more damaging in terms of the credibility of the market economy."

In France, where the government has long supported the creation of national champions and worked actively to protect select companies from the threat of foreign takeover, politicians were quick to point out the paradox of what is essentially the nationalization of the largest American insurance company.

"Today the actions of American policy makers illustrate the need for economic patriotism," said Bernard Carayon, a lawmaker of President Nicolas Sarkozy's center-right governing party, UMP. "I congratulate them."

For the "evangelists of the market this is a painful lesson," he added. We're entering "an era where we have much more regulation and where the public and the private sector will mix much more."

In Asia, the Washington-led bailouts have stirred bitter memories of the very different approach the U.S. government and the International Monetary Fund pushed during the economic crises there a decade ago.

When the IMF pledged $20 billion to help South Korea survive the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, one of the conditions it imposed was that the Korean government allow ailing banks and other companies to collapse rather than bail them out, recalls Yung Chul Park, a professor of economics at Korea University in Seoul who was deeply involved in the negotiations with the IMF.

While Park says the current crisis is different - it's global rather than restricted to one region like Asia - "Washington is following a different script this time."

"I understand why they do it," he added. "But they've lost credibility to some extent in pushing for opening up overseas markets to foreign competition and liberalizing economies."

The ramifications of the rescue of AIG will be felt for years within the United States, too, not just abroad.

That's because it was a very different kind of company than Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which enjoyed government sponsorship as mortgage finance providers, or Bear Stearns, which was regulated by the federal government.

"This was an insurance company that wasn't federally regulated," says Gary Gensler, who served as a top official in the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration. Nor did AIG have access to Federal Reserve funds or deposit insurance, like a commercial bank.

"We're in new territory," Gensler added. "This is a paradigm shift."

AIG is also in a different league both by virtue of the breath of its businesses and its extensive overseas operations, especially in Asia.

What's more, it fell into something of a regulatory gap under the current rules.

While the company, based in New York, is better known for selling conventional products like insurance policies and annuities overseen by state regulators in the United States, it is also deeply involved in the risky, opaque market for derivatives and other complicated financial instruments, which operates largely outside any regulation.

Along with the threat to the plain-vanilla insurance policies held by millions of ordinary consumers, it was the looming threat posed by these arcane financial instruments that prompted Washington to act and bailout AIG.

Chernow, who has written extensively about the efforts of J.P. Morgan to steady the economy in 1907 before the creation of the Federal Reserve, echoed Gensler's conclusion.

"It's pure crisis management," Chernow said. "It's the Treasury and the Federal Reserve lurching from crisis to crisis without a clear statement on how financial failures will be handled in the future. They're afraid to articulate such a policy. The safety net they are spreading seems to widen every day with no end in sight."

Notes:

On Wall Street, employees brace for next disaster

2008-09-17T14:31:00.000-07:00

Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:39pm EDT

By Aarthi Sivaraman

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Who's next? Hours after the U.S. Federal Reserve threw an $85 billion lifeline to American International Group Inc, Wall Street workers took little comfort from the massive rescue and instead tried to guess who would get swept away next.

Even staff at Goldman Sachs Group Inc, among the few investment banks largely unscathed by the credit crisis, signaled fear as the firm's stock plunged.

"We're all in this together," said one Goldman employee who has been with the firm for six years and currently works in its asset management unit. She declined to give her name.

"We are still concerned since we work on Wall Street. We are not secure. Nobody is secure."

Such worries had already gripped investors, who slaughtered the shares of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, who are seen as the next possible victims of a financial industry crisis after AIG was bailed out and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc filed for bankruptcy protection.

Goldman, which made billions of dollars last year with a timely bet the housing crisis was going to worsen, fell as much as 26 percent. Morgan Stanley took a 42 percent hit.

Instead of quelling concerns, the AIG rescue seemed to have ignited fears that more bad news is to come.

At stake for tens of thousands of Wall Street employees are highly-paying jobs that help prop up New York City and the wider U.S. economy, as well as billions of dollars in personal stock wealth and bonuses that may be erased.

Across from AIG's office near Wall Street, Deutsche Bank AG employees were also fearful of a financial tsunami.

"I have not read much about us in the papers, but that makes me nervous," said one Deutsche staffer, who said she had just returned from vacation.

"I only heard all these things about AIG from last week," she added, pointing out how the global insurance giant's status seemed to have evaporated overnight.

Still, some Deutsche employees said the firm may not be in the direct line of fire.

"We are solid. We don't fool around with mortgages and double mortgages," said Juan, a Deutsche Bank employee for 14 years, who said he knew people at AIG. He declined to give his last name.

WHY AIG?

The consensus among many Wall Street workers was that the Fed was right in jumping to AIG's rescue.

"It's a good thing," said Deutsche Bank's Juan. "Otherwise they would have gone down too, like Lehman. Forty thousand jobs is too many to lose. Let's hope this is right."

The AIG bailout came just days after the Fed refused to help a struggling Lehman Brothers. Cornered, Lehman filed for bankruptcy earlier this week.

"You cannot compare the two, given our breadth of products, size of the company and how far-reaching we are," said one AIG employee in its insurance unit. "They did what was in the best interest of the economy, the best interest of the people and the best interest of the marketplace."

But some staffers were confused as to what the rescue meant for them.

"I don't know what to make of it," one AIG employee said when asked if she expected any job cuts.

At AIG's offices in downtown Manhattan, employees said it was business as usual until they heard otherwise. Many stood outside their buildings with co-workers and mulled how long the bloodshed in the financial markets would last.

"I wish this could be the end of it," said the AIG insurance employee outside the company's office on Water Street. "But realistically, it is somewhere in the middle."

(Editing by Andre Grenon)

© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

IHSG dan Bayang-bayang Kemelut Bursa Global

2008-09-16T17:17:00.000-07:00

Kompas, Rabu, 17 September 2008 | 03:00 WIB

Oleh Reinhard Nainggolan

Pasar saham Indonesia sedang ” berkabung”. Indeks harga saham gabungan atau IHSG terus melorot dan menyentuh level terendah dalam kurun waktu hampir dua tahun terakhir. Sekalipun sejalan dengan pelemahan indeks bursa global, kondisi ini mencemaskan dan tidak pernah diperkirakan sebelumnya.

IHSG yang tercatat sebesar 2.731,51 pada 2 Januari dan sempat menyentuh posisi tertinggi sepanjang sejarah bursa Indonesia pada 9 Januari 2008, yaitu 2.830,26, kini terpuruk ke level yang mengenaskan.

Pada perdagangan saham, Senin (15/9), IHSG ditutup pada 1.719,25 poin dan sedikit menguat pada Selasa (16/9) menjadi 1.735,64 poin.

Angka-angka ini menunjukkan bahwa nilai keseluruhan saham yang tercatat di Bursa Efek Indonesia selama hampir sembilan bulan terakhir telah tergerus 36,45 persen. Sebanyak itu pula nilai investasi pelaku pasar saham Indonesia telah berkurang.

Kondisi ini jauh dari perkiraan banyak pihak: mulai dari investor, analis, otoritas pasar modal, sampai pejabat negara.

Saat membuka perdagangan saham Bursa Efek Indonesia 2 Januari 2008, Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono optimistis pada 2008 IHSG akan tumbuh minimal 30 persen. Sejumlah analis bahkan memperkirakan lebih tinggi.

Optimisme itu didukung prestasi IHSG yang naik 52 persen pada tahun 2007, dan perkiraan pertumbuhan ekonomi Indonesia sepanjang 2008-2010 yang ditunjang oleh tingginya konsumsi dan proyek-proyek infrastruktur.

Namun, sejak pertengahan Januari, IHSG mulai goyang menyusul anjloknya sejumlah bursa regional dan global. Ini menunjukkan bahwa bursa Indonesia tidak berdiri sendiri, melainkan ada ketergantungan dengan bursa global, akibat semakin terintegrasinya pasar keuangan dunia.

Krisis AS

Guncangan terhadap bursa global berawal dari maraknya pemberitaan tentang krisis perumahan (subprime mortgage) di Amerika Serikat.

Pemberitaan itu semakin mengkhawatirkan ketika sejumlah perusahaan investasi dan keuangan besar di AS, antara lain Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Bank Indymac, dan kelompok bank besar lainnya, yang tergabung dalam Wachovia Corporation, melaporkan kerugian cukup dalam, yang mencapai miliaran dollar AS.

Kerugian itu belum termaksud kerugian besar yang diderita perusahaan penyedia kredit kepemilikan rumah terbesar di AS, Fannie Mae dan Freddie Mac.

Intervensi yang dilakukan bank sentral AS, The Federal Reserve, tidak banyak membantu. Padahal, The Fed telah berkali-kali memangkas suku bunga dan menyuntikkan dana hingga ratusan miliar dollar AS ke sejumlah perusahaan bermasalah.

Krisis yang semakin meluas ditambah dengan meningkatnya jumlah pengangguran yang berdampak pada penurunan konsumsi mengakibatkan AS berada di ambang resesi.

Bayang-bayang pelemahan ekonomi global mulai muncul dan semakin kuat tatkala negara-negara di Eropa juga mengalami hal yang sama dengan AS.

Ketakutan itu cukup beralasan karena AS dan Eropa memiliki dan mengendalikan sekitar 50 persen transaksi ekonomi dunia, termasuk di pasar finansial. Rasa khawatir terhadap pelemahan ekonomi global semakin dalam ketika harga komoditas dunia terus melambung, sekalipun dalam sebulan terakhir menurun.

Dalam negeri

Di dalam negeri, kenaikan harga bahan bakar minyak (BBM) pada 24 Mei ikut memperkeruh suasana pasar saham. Tingkat inflasi pascakenaikan BBM yang mencapai dua digit (di atas 10 persen) mendapat reaksi negatif dari pelaku pasar.

Ketika harga komoditas minyak mentah dan minyak sawit (crude palm oil) sejak Agustus mulai turun, aksi jual saham tetap saja tinggi. Ini membuat banyak pihak tidak habis pikir. Seharusnya penurunan harga komoditas berdampak positif terhadap perekonomian secara umum, yang salah satunya direfleksikan oleh indeks saham.

Saat itu, beberapa kali IHSG anjlok di tengah indeks bursa- bursa regional dan global justru sedang rebound (meningkat).

”Aneh, harga minyak naik, IHSG turun. Harga minyak turun, IHSG turun juga. Maunya apa sih,” kata Alex Marco, pelaku pasar modal, dengan nada geram.

Tekanan yang dialami IHSG sedikit banyak dipengaruhi langkah investor mengalihkan portofolionya, dari saham ke investasi pendapatan tetap akibat meningkatnya tingkat ketidakpastian di pasar saham.

Aksi mengubah portofolio itu semakin marak dilakukan karena suku bunga perbankan dan kupon obligasi cenderung meningkat.

Lehman

Belum usai mencerna dengan tuntas apa yang sebenarnya terjadi, bursa global sudah kembali diguncang dengan bangkrutnya Lehman Brothers.

Kebangkrutan perusahaan sekuritas terbesar keempat di AS itu serta-merta menimbulkan sentimen negatif. Pelaku pasar pun panik dengan melepas portofolio yang diperkirakan dimiliki oleh Lehman Brothers. Bursa global pun kembali terpukul.

”Saat Lehman Brothers dilikuidasi, portofolionya akan anjlok. Makanya investor berlomba mencari tahu portofolio apa saja yang dimiliki Lehman agar bisa cepat melepasnya,” kata Kepala Riset Recapital Poltak Hotradero.

Pengamat pasar modal, Yanuar Rizky, menerangkan, kebangkrutan sejumlah perusahaan investasi dan keuangan di AS memaksa para manajer investasi di negara itu menarik portofolionya dari berbagai negara. Kebijakan yang didukung oleh Pemerintah AS itu untuk memperkuat pasar modal AS, dengan memindahkan modal ke sejumlah bursa di negara itu.

Dana hasil penjualan saham di berbagai negara, lanjut Yanuar, digunakan untuk membeli mata uang dollar AS. ”Karena itu, mengapa setelah indeks bursa negara berkembang turun, nilai tukar mata uang di masing-masing bursa itu melemah dan dollar AS menguat,” tutur Yanuar.

Pengamat pasar modal, Robert JS Nayoan, memperkirakan, kemelut di bursa global, termasuk Indonesia, masih akan berlangsung sampai batas waktu yang sulit ditentukan.

Apalagi, menurut Robert, runtuhnya Lehman Brothers bukan akhir, tetapi baru awal dari kehancuran ekonomi AS.

Dalam kondisi seperti ini, saran dari Warren Buffett, investor besar yang saat ini menjadi orang terkaya di dunia, mungkin perlu diperhatikan. Dalam sejumlah kesempatan, Buffett mengatakan, ”Selalu gunakan akal pikiran Anda. Sadarilah, bertindak berdasarkan emosi akan membunuh portofolio Anda.”

Reinhard NainggolaN

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/09/17/01003024/ihsg.dan.bayang-bayang.kemelut.bursa.global

Ekonomi Global di Tepi Jurang

2008-09-16T16:35:00.000-07:00

Kompas, Rabu, 17 September 2008 | 00:24 WIB

Oleh A Tony Prasetiantono

Pengumuman kebangkrutan Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, Senin (15/9), sepertinya telah memojokkan perekonomian global ke bibir jurang. Kini situasinya menjadi sangat kritis.

Bayangkan, bank investasi terbesar keempat di Amerika Serikat, yang sudah teruji selama 158 tahun, dengan aset 639 miliar dollar AS, bisa bangkrut. Padahal, bank ini pernah berhasil melewati masa- masa sulit saat terjadi kebangkrutan perusahaan kereta api di AS tahun 1800-an, depresi dunia tahun 1930-an, serta runtuhnya hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) pada tahun 1998. Kini semua kehebatan itu tak berbekas.

Meski krisis subprime mortgage sudah berlangsung sejak Juli 2007 dan beberapa bank investasi besar sempat mengumumkan kerugiannya, termasuk Citigroup dan Merrill Lynch, tetapi berita bangkrutnya Lehman Brothers merupakan hal yang mengejutkan. Sebagaimana kasus-kasus sebelumnya, kasus kerugian bank investasi biasanya berakhir dengan solusi bail out, yakni penyuntikan dana untuk menambah modal. Akhir-akhir ini, investor dari Timur Tengah (sovereign wealth fund) terlihat amat aktif memborong aset-aset perusahaan AS terkemuka. Investor Timur Tengah bahkan menyuntikkan dana puluhan miliar dollar AS ke Citigroup, bank universal yang menjadi salah satu ikon terpenting sektor finansial AS.

Kini, yang menjadi masalah adalah, banyak yang meyakini, kebangkrutan Lehman Brothers bukan kasus terakhir. Masih ada sejumlah kasus lain menyusul, yang antara lain disebabkan oleh risiko sistemik (systemic risk) karena Lehman Brothers memiliki banyak kewajiban kepada banyak kreditor. Seluruh utang Lehman Brothers mencapai 613 miliar dollar AS. Jumlah ini sedikit lebih rendah daripada asetnya yang diklaim 639 miliar dollar AS. Namun, apakah angka-angka itu valid? Kalaupun valid, berapa lama aset-aset itu bisa dicairkan?

Dua kreditor besar Lehman Brothers adalah Citibank dan Bank of New York Mellon, yang memegang obligasi 138 miliar dollar AS. Jika aset-aset itu tidak tertagih, bank-bank ini akan terkena dampak risiko sistemik. Seberapa parah kondisi ini akan menyeret perekonomian global ke jurang krisis atau resesi? Bagaimana implikasinya terhadap perekonomian Indonesia?

Tiga ”jurus”

Dalam menghadapi ancaman resesi ini, pemerintah federal AS setidaknya mengandalkan pada tiga ”jurus”, yang merupakan kombinasi kebijakan (policy mix) antara moneter, fiskal, dan penyelamatan korporasi finansial. Kebijakan moneter yang bisa dipilih adalah menurunkan suku bunga. Pada saat ini, suku bunga bank sentral (Fed funds rate) adalah 2,0 persen. Pilihan bagi Fed hanya dua: menurunkan suku bunga, misalnya menjadi 1,75 persen atau 1,50 persen, atau menahannya di level 2,0 persen. Kebanyakan analis ekonomi di AS, menurut survei Bloomberg, Selasa (16/9), berpendapat, The Fed cenderung akan menurunkan suku bunganya.

Memang hal ini berisiko. Inflasi year on year (12 bulan terakhir) AS kini sudah tinggi, 5,6 persen. Penurunan suku bunga akan memicu inflasi lebih tinggi. Namun, dengan harga minyak yang meluncur turun ke level 91 dollar AS per barrel, yang berarti bisa menekan inflasi, maka diduga The Fed akan memilih kebijakan ini. Penurunan suku bunga juga bisa membantu bursa saham mengalami rebound (memantul ke atas) karena dana akan mengalir dari pasar uang ke pasar modal.

Sementara itu, penurunan suku bunga AS juga akan menyebabkan mata uang dollar AS melemah terhadap euro dan poundsterling. Ini akan menjadi berita buruk bagi Eropa dan Inggris, yang selama ini sudah amat tertekan neraca perdagangannya akibat mata uangnya terlalu kuat. Mereka juga akan menurunkan suku bunga. Kawasan lain, misalnya Australia, juga menurunkan suku bunganya agar mata uangnya tidak menjadi terlalu kuat sehingga bisa memperbaiki neraca perdagangannya.

Sedangkan kebijakan stimulus fiskal dilakukan pemerintah federal melalui pengembalian uang pajak kepada masyarakat (tax refund) agar dapat dibelanjakan, sejumlah 157 miliar dollar AS. Kebijakan ini lumayan sukses, buktinya sisi konsumsi AS cukup tinggi sehingga menyebabkan pertumbuhan ekonomi masih positif (sekarang 2,2 persen), yang berarti belum resesi. Para ekonom biasanya mendefinisikan resesi sebagai situasi pertumbuhan ekonomi negatif selama dua triwulan berurutan.

Yang agak membingungkan adalah kebijakan penalangan (bail out). Menteri Keuangan Henry Paulson menolak untuk menyelamatkan Lehman Brothers karena tidak mau menginjeksinya dengan dana yang berasal dari pajak yang dibayar masyarakat. Sikap ini juga dimaksudkan sebagai terapi kejut agar pengelola bank lebih berhati-hati (Jakarta Post, 16/9). Sikap ini agak aneh karena sebelumnya pemerintah mau menalangi Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, dan Freddie Mac. Apa bedanya? Saya menduga penyebabnya karena kasus Lehman Brothers berskala jauh lebih besar. Jika ditalangi, bisa menimbulkan moral hazard. Ini tidak baik dari sisi tata kelola perusahaan (corporate governance). Namun, membiarkan Lehman Brothers mati sungguh berisiko. Bank- bank lain bisa berguguran terkena efek domino. Bisakah Menkeu Paulson berubah pikiran?

Meredakan kepanikan

Indonesia tidak bisa menghindar dari dampak negatif kejadian ini. Karena sedikitnya 50 persen investor di Bursa Efek Indonesia adalah pemain asing, maka kepanikan di New York serta-merta juga diekspresikan di Jakarta. Akibatnya, bursa efek kita kalang kabut dan indeks harga jatuh ke 1.700-an atau kembali ke level akhir 2006.

Secara teknis, agak sulit mencegah para investor asing tidak menarik dananya dari Jakarta. Mereka sedang berusaha mengurangi kerugian di New York dengan melepas aset di Jakarta. Namun, bagi investor domestik, otoritas bursa harus berusaha meyakinkan mereka bahwa seharusnya tidak ada hubungan langsung antara kepanikan sektor finansial di New York dan di Jakarta. Karakteristik bank-bank investasi AS berbeda, mereka memiliki exposure di kredit perumahan yang kurang berkualitas (subprime mortgage) dan produk turunannya. Sedangkan bank-bank di Indonesia, tidak memiliki exposure semacam itu. Bank-bank kita lebih banyak bermain di kredit konsumen dan komersial, yang relatif lebih aman. Justru dengan harga saham yang sedang rendah di Jakarta, inilah saatnya membeli, bukan menjual.

Secara fundamental, perekonomian Indonesia sebenarnya sedang baik-baik saja meski tidak terlalu impresif. Pertumbuhan ekonomi semester I-2008 sebesar 6,39 persen termasuk baik dan di luar dugaan. Industri perbankan juga mencatat kinerja yang mengejutkan. Ekspansi kredit mencapai 35 persen, suatu level yang tak terbayangkan sebelumnya. Akibatnya, indikator loan to deposit ratio (LDR) atau rasio antara kredit berbanding dana pihak ketiga mencatat rekor tertinggi sejak krisis 1998, yakni 76 persen. Artinya, industri perbankan sedang berakselerasi.

Memang ada masalah inflasi (y-o-y) yang kini 11,85 persen. Namun, itu bisa dipahami karena kenaikan harga BBM domestik yang tak terhindarkan akibat harga minyak dunia yang pernah mencapai 147 dollar per barrel (11/7/2008). Bahkan negara Singapura pun, yang mestinya gampang menangani inflasi, ternyata gagal (inflasi 6,5 persen). Inflasi yang jauh lebih tinggi dialami Pakistan (23 persen) dan Vietnam (27 persen). Masalah lain adalah surplus perdagangan yang menipis menjadi tujuh miliar dollar AS (Januari-Juli 2008), jauh menurun dibandingkan hampir 40 miliar dollar AS di sepanjang 2007. Melemahnya surplus perdagangan ini ikut memberi andil penurunan cadangan devisa Bank Indonesia, dari 60 miliar dollar AS menjadi 57 miliar dollar AS.

Semua gambaran fundamental itu sebenarnya tidak perlu membuat panik bursa efek kita. Terlebih dengan harga minyak yang kini 91 dollar per barrel, mestinya menimbulkan optimisme bahwa ancaman inflasi dari faktor eksternal (imported inflation) dapat dikendalikan. Jadi, kunci solusi dari gonjang-ganjing ini adalah apakah kepanikan dapat dikendalikan?

Mudah-mudahan para pelaku bursa segera kembali menemukan rasionalitasnya, dan memborong kembali saham-saham yang kini berharga murah. Kerja sama bank sentral negara-negara maju untuk memasok likuiditas juga akan menjadi faktor kunci. Di Indonesia, upaya Departemen Keuangan untuk mencairkan dana Rp 120 triliun dari rekeningnya di Bank Indonesia, untuk dibelanjakan secara efektif bisa menjadi stimulus fiskal yang bisa meredakan ketegangan likuiditas, yang akhir-akhir ini sedemikian ketat.

A Tony Prasetiantono Dosen Fakultas Ekonomika dan Bisnis UGM; Chief Economist BNI

A Tony Prasetiantono

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/09/17/00243176/ekonomi.global.di.tepi.jurang

Buntut kekacauan finansial di Asia

2008-09-16T06:08:00.000-07:00

Lehman demise ripples across Asia financial system

By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ – AP, 16 September 2008

HONG KONG (AP) — The Bank of Japan injected 2.5 trillion yen, or $24 billion, into money markets Tuesday as regulators across Asia moved to bolster their financial systems after the collapse of U.S. investment house Lehman Brothers.

From Tokyo to Hong Kong and Seoul, operations of Lehman's local units were suspended and governments sought to reassure investors that the toll on regional companies exposed to the bank would be limited.

"The Bank of Japan will carefully monitor recent situations surrounding the U.S. financial institutions and their influences, and will continue to strive to ensure smooth settlement of funds and maintain stability in financial markets through measures such as appropriate money market operations," Gov. Masaaki Shirakawa said as the institution pumped 2.5 trillion yen into money markets through two separate injections.

Cabinet ministers, along with the central bank chief, were also to hold an emergency financial meeting.

South Korea's central bank, meanwhile, said it was intensifying its monitoring of financial and foreign exchange markets. The Bank of Korea would provide extra foreign currency liquidity if needed via the swap market to "calm nerves of market participants," it said.

In China, the mainland central bank cut a key interest rate Monday for the first time in more than six years. Hong Kong's monetary chief emphasized plans in place to flush more cash into the banking system if necessary during a "severe crisis" in global markets.

As regional equities plunged Tuesday, Taiwan directed its state-owned banks and major funds to buy shares in an effort to stem heavy losses in the country's market.

Reeling from $60 billion in toxic real-estate debt, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in New York on Monday. The storied, 158-year-old Wall Street firm — once America's fourth-largest investment bank — was unable to secure an investment partner despite a flurry of last-minute negotiations over the weekend.

Investors were also shaken by news Monday that Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America Corp. for about $50 billion.

In Tokyo, the Japanese unit of Lehman Brothers requested bankruptcy protection. Regulators in South Korea, Hong Kong and Australia restricted or stopped altogether the operations and trading activities of local Lehman businesses.

As governments appealed for calm, though, there were signs of fallout from the bankruptcy.

In China, an investment fund warned of potentially heavy losses. Hua An Fund Management Co., one of a number of funds operating foreign investment funds under China's "qualified domestic institutional investor," or QDII, program, did not say how much might be at risk.

In Taiwan, the regulatory watchdog revealed that the country's institutional and retail investors held about 80 billion New Taiwan dollars ($2.5 billion) worth of exposure to Lehman investments.

Several Japanese lenders — Aozora Bank Ltd., Chuo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Inc. and Chiba Bank among them — said their actual exposure to Lehman would be little changed from their earlier projections or even smaller.

"So far, we haven't confirmed any signs that Japanese financial institutions are seriously affected," said Japanese Financial Services Minister Toshimitsu Motegi.

South Korea's financial institutions had a total of $720 million exposure to Lehman Brothers, but the amount was likely to have a minimal effect on their financial soundness, the country's financial regulator said.

In Australia, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described Australian banks' exposure to the Lehman bankruptcy as "modest."

Among the country's financials, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. said it had around $120 million exposure to Lehman. Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd. divulged about $122 million on its books.

"We are facing one of the most difficult times in international financial markets," Australia Treasurer Wayne Swan told Parliament on Tuesday.

"We don't face the same problems being experienced in the United States," he added. "But nevertheless, events on international markets are having an impact on confidence around the world."

AP writers Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo, Kelly Olsen in Seoul, South Korea, Rohan Sullivan in Sydney, Australia, Rod McGuirk in Canberra, Australia, and Elaine Kurtenbach in Shanghai, China, contributed to this report.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gsB5UW4UDCEstS1X_K5LuptgLnSwD937N32O0

Frantic day on Wall Street as banks fall

2008-09-15T07:09:00.000-07:00

By Andrew Ross Sorkin

Monday, September 15, 2008

In one of the most dramatic two days in Wall Street's history, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself to Bank of America for roughly $50 billion to avert a deepening financial crisis, while another prominent securities firm, Lehman Brothers, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The humbling moves, which reshape the landscape of American finance, mark the latest chapter in a tumultuous year in which once-proud financial institutions have been brought to their knees as a result of tens of billions of dollars in losses because of bad mortgage finance and real estate investments.

They culminated a weekend of frantic around-the-clock negotiations, as Wall Street bankers huddled in meetings at the behest of Bush administration officials to try to avoid a downward spiral in the markets stemming from a crisis of confidence.

"My goodness. I've been in the business 35 years, and these are the most extraordinary events I've ever seen," said Peter Peterson, co-founder of the private equity firm the Blackstone Group, who was head of Lehman in the 1970s and a secretary of commerce in the Nixon administration.

It remains to be seen whether the sale of Merrill, which was worth more than $100 billion during the last year, and the controlled demise of Lehman will be enough to finally turn the tide in the yearlong financial crisis that has crippled Wall Street. The market took a strong turn down Monday, reacting to Lehman's plan to wind down its trading operations. Questions remain whether other companies may still falter, like the American International Group, the large insurer, and Washington Mutual, the nation's largest savings and loan. Both companies' stocks fell precipitously last week.

Though the government took control of the troubled mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only a week ago, investors have become increasingly nervous about the difficulties of major financial institutions to recover from their losses.

How things play out could affect the broader economy, which has been weakening steadily as the financial crisis has deepened over the last year, with unemployment increasing as the nation's growth rate has slowed.

What will happen to Merrill's 60,000 employees or Lehman's 25,000 employees remains unclear. Worried about the unfolding crisis and its potential impact on New York City's economy, Mayor Michael Bloomberg canceled a trip to California to meet with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Instead, aides said, Bloomberg spent much of the weekend working the phones, talking to federal officials and bank executives in an effort to gauge the severity of the crisis.

The weekend that humbled Lehman and Merrill Lynch and rewarded Bank of America, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, began at 6 p.m. Friday in the first of a series of emergency meetings at the Federal Reserve building in Downtown New York.

The meeting was called by Fed officials, with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. in attendance, and it included top bankers. The Treasury and Federal Reserve had already stepped in on several occasions to rescue the financial system, forcing a shotgun marriage between Bear Stearns and JPMorgan Chase this year and backstopping $29 billion worth of troubled assets and then agreeing to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The bankers were told that the government would not bail out Lehman and that it was up to Wall Street to solve its problems. Lehman's stock tumbled sharply last week as concerns about its financial condition grew and other firms started to pull back from doing business with it, threatening its viability.

Without government backing, Lehman began trying to find a buyer, focusing on Barclays, the big British bank, and Bank of America. At the same time, other Wall Street executives grew more concerned about their own precarious situation.

The fates of Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers would not seem to be linked; Merrill has the nation's largest brokerage force and its name is known in towns across America, while Lehman's main customers are big institutions. But during the credit boom both firms piled into risky real estate and ended up severely weakened, with inadequate capital and toxic assets.

Knowing that investors were worried about Merrill, John Thain, its chief executive and an alumnus of Goldman Sachs and the New York Stock Exchange, and Kenneth Lewis, Bank of America's chief executive, began negotiations. One person briefed on the negotiations said Bank of America had approached Merrill earlier in the summer but Thain had rebuffed the offer. Now, prompted by the reality that a Lehman bankruptcy would ripple through Wall Street and further cripple Merrill Lynch, the two parties proceeded with discussions.

On Sunday morning, Thain and Lewis cemented the deal. It could not be determined if Thain would play a role in the new company, but two people briefed on the negotiations said they did not expect him to stay. Merrill's "thundering herd" of 17,000 brokers will be combined with Bank of America's smaller group of wealth advisers and called Merrill Lynch Wealth Management.

For Bank of America, which this year bought Countrywide Financial, the troubled mortgage lender, the purchase of Merrill puts it at the pinnacle of American finance, making it the biggest brokerage house and consumer banking franchise.

Bank of America eventually walked away from its talks with Lehman after the government refused to take responsibility for losses on some of Lehman's most troubled real-estate assets, something it agreed to do when JP Morgan Chase bought Bear Stearns to save it from a bankruptcy filing in March.

A leading proposal to rescue Lehman would have divided the bank into two entities, a "good bank" and a "bad bank." Under that scenario, Barclays would have bought the parts of Lehman that have been performing well, while a group of 10 to 15 Wall Street companies would have agreed to absorb losses from the bank's troubled assets, to two people briefed on the proposal said. Taxpayer money would not have been included in such a deal, they said.

Other Wall Street banks also balked at the deal, unhappy at facing potential losses while Bank of America or Barclays walked away with the potentially profitable part of Lehman at a cheap price.

For Lehman, the end essentially came Sunday morning when its last potential suitor, Barclays, walked away from a deal, saying it could not obtain a shareholder vote to approve a transaction before Monday morning, something required under London Stock Exchange listing rules, one person close to the matter said. Other people involved in the talks said the Financial Services Authority, the British securities regulator, had discouraged Barclays from pursuing a deal. Peter Truell, a spokesman for Barclays, declined to comment.

Lehman said early Monday it had filed a Chapter 11 petition with the U.S. bankruptcy court in what was the largest failure of an investment bank since the collapse of Drexel Burnham Lambert 18 years ago. Lehman's subsidiaries were expected to remain solvent while the firm liquidates its holdings, people close to the deal said. Under this scenario, a group of banks have tentatively agreed to provide a financial backstop to assist in an orderly winding down of the 158-year-old investment bank. Such an agreement could expose those banks to losses on Lehman's assets.

Herbert McDade III, Lehman's president, was at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York late Sunday, discussing terms of Lehman's dissolution with government officials. The Fed was expect to play a supporting role in the process by temporarily accepting lower-quality assets from banks in return for loans from the government.

Lehman's filing is unlikely to resemble those of other companies that seek bankruptcy protection. Because of the harsher treatment that federal bankruptcy law applies to financial-services firms, Lehman cannot hope to reorganize and survive. It was not clear whether the government would appoint a trustee to supervise Lehman's liquidation or how big the financial backstop would be.

Lehman has retained the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges as its bankruptcy counsel.

The collapse of Lehman is a devastating end for Richard Fuld Jr., the chief executive, who has led the bank since it emerged from American Express as a public company in 1994. Fuld, who steered Lehman through near-death experiences in the past, spent the last several days in his 31st floor office in Lehman's midtown headquarters on the phone from 6 a.m. until well past midnight trying to find save the firm, a person close to the matter said.

The weekend's events indicate that top officials at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury will take a harder line on providing government support of troubled financial institutions.

While offering to help Wall Street organize a shotgun marriage for Lehman, both the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, and Paulson had warned that they would not put taxpayer money at risk simply to prevent a Lehman collapse.

The tough-love message was a major change in strategy, but it remained unclear until at least Friday whether the approach was real or just posturing. If the Fed was faced with the genuine risk of another market meltdown, analysts said, it would be almost duty-bound to ride to a rescue of one kind or another.

What few people anticipated was that the Treasury and Fed officials might reach for an even broader strategy.

"They were faced after Bear Stearns with the problem of where to draw the line," said Laurence Meyer, a former Fed governor who is now vice chairman of Macroeconomic Advisors, a forecasting firm. "It became clear that this piecemeal, patchwork, case-by-case approach might not get the job done."

At first glance, the new strategy by Paulson and Bernanke represents a much purer and tougher insistence that Wall Street work out its own problems without government help.

But that is only the first glance. If Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch, its capital reserves would immediately fall below the minimum requirements for bank holding companies. Federal regulators, including the Federal Reserve, would have to show lenience for as long as it took the capital markets to regain their confidence which could be quite a while.

And Merrill Lynch is hardly the only troubled financial institution on the horizon. Administration officials acknowledged this week that more bank failures were inevitable, and the main protection for depositors the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is likely to exhaust the reserves it has built over the years from bank insurance premiums.

"What we need now is a systemic solution and to admit that this is an extraordinary situation," Meyer said. He said the government should go to the heart of the crisis the mortgage market and start buying mortgage-backed securities in a broad rescue.

That is similar to an approach urged by Alan Greenspan, Bernanke's predecessor as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Greenspan, who has long been a staunch opponent of government intervention in the economy, said Sunday that the federal government might have to shore up some financial institutions.

"This is a once-in-a-half-century, probably once-in-a-century type of event," Greenspan said in an interview on ABC. "I think the argument has got to be that there are certain types of institutions which are so fundamental to the functioning of the movement of savings into real investment in an economy that on very rare occasions and this is one of them it's desirable to prevent them from liquidating in a sharply disruptive manner."

Most economists say that bailouts are often bad economic policy because each rescue tends to encourage "moral hazard" the tendency of institutions and investors to take even bigger risks because they assume the government will rescue them, too.

Both Paulson and Bernanke worried that they had already gone much further than they had ever wanted, first by underwriting the takeover of Bear Stearns in March and by the far bigger bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Officials noted that Lehman's downfall posed a lower systemic threat because it had been a very visible and growing risk for months, which meant that its customers and trading partners had had months to prepare themselves.

Outside the public eye, Fed officials had acquired much more information since March about the interconnections and cross-exposure to risk among Wall Street investment banks, hedge funds and traders in the vast market for credit-default swaps and other derivatives.

But James Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa and chairman of the House Banking committee, said the Fed and Treasury might not be able to avoid a broader rescue.

"The Fed's historic position is to object philosophically to a rescue role but in the end to do everything in its power to avoid anything that poses systemic risk," said Leach, now a lecturer at Harvard.

"My sense is that the systemic question will be the only question on the table if Lehman falters," he continued. "If systemic risk is considered grave, the Fed, perhaps with Treasury playing at least an advisory role, will intervene."

http://iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=16143966

Stunning Fall for Main Street’s Brokerage Firm

2008-09-15T06:07:00.000-07:00

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Merrill Lynch’s offices. Merrill, which was founded in 1914, had long promoted the idea that anyone, not just the rich, should invest in the markets.

By LOUISE STORY

Published: September 14, 2008

It’s the end of an era for Merri Lynch, the brokerage firm that brought Wall Street to Main Street.

John A. Thain, chief executive of Merrill Lynch. The company decided to sell itself to Bank of America after billions in losses.

The New York Times

Merrill, which has lost more than $45 billion on its mortgage investments, agreed to sell itself to Bank of America for $50.3 billion in stock, according to people briefed on the negotiations.

It is a remarkable fall from grace for the 94-year-old Merrill, whose corporate logo — a bull — has long symbolized the fundamental optimism of Wall Street. After a frantic weekend of talks between Wall Street executives and federal officials over the fate of the teetering Lehman Brothers, fear spread on Sunday that Merrill, staggered by losses, might also falter. The merger would combine Bank of America’s banking and lending strength with Merrill Lynch’s wealth management expertise.

“It is an enormous shock,” said Steve Fraser, a Wall Street historian and author of “Wall Street: America’s Dream Palace.”

“Merrill was a kind of bedrock institution whose stability and longevity was taken for granted and was reassuring to people,” Mr. Fraser said. “Even in these very highly erratic and speculative marketplaces like we’ve been living through, you didn’t think Merrill would be vulnerable.”

The sale, if completed, would open a new chapter for Merrill, which was founded in 1914 and promoted the idea that anyone, not just the rich, should invest in markets. Merrill’s brokers would be combined with Bank of America’s smaller group of wealth advisers into an entity called Merrill Lynch Wealth Management, these people said. Customers with brokerage accounts at Merrill are unlikely to be financially affected.

Merrill, the nation’s largest brokerage firm, was one of the earliest Wall Street firms to go public, in 1971. Its executives, traditionally former stockbrokers, have long been viewed as spokespeople for the entire industry. After the crash of 1987, for instance, Merrill’s chief executive appeared on a television commercial and used one of the company’s long-time slogans, saying: “Merrill Lynch is still bullish on America.”

Last December, John A. Thain, Merrill’s chairman and chief executive, was brought in to try to salvage the troubled company. It remains unclear how many Merrill employees will be hired by Bank of America.

Since the credit crisis first flared more than a year ago, Merrill has been among the most wounded. Under its previous chief executive, E. Stanley O’Neal, Merrill moved aggressively into the mortgage market and became one of the top issuers of investment vehicles linked to subprime mortgages and other risky forms of debt. Mr. O’Neal was forced out last fall after the tumult in the mortgage market began.

Since then, the investment bank has taken more than $45 billion in write-downs, a figure that is two times more than all the profit Merrill made in the two and a half years before the credit crisis. The charges have pushed Merrill Lynch deep into the red and forced the company to lay off 4,000 workers. Merrill has raised more than $15 billion in additional capital to strengthen its financial position but has struggled to regain investors’ confidence.

Employees reached Sunday night reacted with dismay and said they would consider leaving after Bank of America took over. Many said they were saddened that Merrill, which has long prided itself on its independence, would now become part of a larger commercial bank.

“A hundred guys flew this firm into a mountain,” said a broker who works for Merrill in California and asked to remain anonymous because he did not have permission to speak with reporters. “It’s really sad. Now we’re going to be a bank like every one else.”

Many employees hoped that Mr. Thain would turn the company around. A former Goldman Sachs executive, Mr. Thain is known as Mr. Fix-It because he pushed the New York Stock Exchange into the modern era as its chief executive over the last two years.

Mr. Thain undertook seven major transactions this summer in hopes of bolstering Merrill. Among the transactions were a sale of Merrill’s $4.4 billion stake in Bloomberg, the financial news and data service. Merrill also raised $9.8 billion of common equity and shed $31 billion of its risky mortgage investments for pennies on the dollar.

Explaining his decisions in an interview in July, Mr. Thain pointed to employee morale and said Merrill needed to move beyond its past.

“We have over 60,000 people working every day,” Mr. Thain said. “All the efforts of these people were overwhelmed by the write-downs in the mortgage-related assets.”

Merrill Lynch has been through tough times before. As the stock market soared in the 1920s, Charles E. Merrill, one of the company’s founders, worried about speculation and advised his clients that they should “take advantage of present high prices and put your financial house in order.” After the stock market crash of 1929, Merrill survived in large part by spinning off its retail brokerage business and focusing on investment banking. The company later reunited.

Many Americans remained skeptical of Wall Street even into the 1950s, and Merrill Lynch used its marketing and local branches to try to build a better reputation for the industry. At the same time it began expanding into Europe. In the 1990s, Merrill was the first financial services company to surpass $1 trillion in client assets under management, according to the company’s Web site.

The new, combined group, Merrill Lynch Wealth Management, would be run by Robert J. McCann, the head of Merrill’s global wealth management business. Gregory J. Fleming, president of Merrill Lynch, will become president of the combined bank’s corporate and investment bank, while Thomas K. Montag, who started at Merrill Lynch in August, will be head of all risk, trading and institutional sales, the people briefed on the negotiations said.

Merrill’s top executives had long believed the company would survive the turmoil in the markets, but changed their minds this weekend. Some observers said they may have been wise to do so.

“Almost all of these institutions are worth a lot more while they’re still operating and before they get caught in a financial hurricane,” said James A. Wilcox, a professor at the Haas School of Business at University of California in Berkeley and a former chief economist at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

As recently as last Wednesday, Mr. Thain was still out selling the Merrill story. He met with worried employees financial advisers in Minneapolis as part of a series of town halls he has been holding to answer employee questions. Mr. Thain reassured them about the company’s capital base, dwindling level of worrisome assets, and the value of Merrill Lynch’s businesses, according to someone who attended.

And he told them that the pain looked like it would end by 2009.

Jenny Anderson and Andrew Ross Sorkin contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15merrill.html?em

WB lays out RI four-year lending program

2008-09-13T15:21:00.001-07:00

The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Sat, 09/13/2008 10:02 AM | Business

The World Bank, one of the country's major donors, will provide Indonesia with nearly US$2 billion in aid per year for the next four years to support national development programs.

The Bank pledged its commitment Thursday in Washington (Friday, Jakarta time) through a Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) for the period 2009 to 2012, a media statement said.

According to the commitment, the Bank will assist Indonesia with building the capacity of institutions related to environmental sustainability and disaster mitigation, education, poverty reduction, community development and social protection, infrastructure and private sector development.

The Bank said the commitment reflected its overriding confidence in a country that, facing a massive economic crisis ten years ago, has gone on to become "a confident middle-income country," thanks to years of reform.

While the future looks bright for the country, Indonesia should strive to continuously improve its institutions to further enhance growth and cope with various economic challenges, the Bank added.

"Indonesia's main challenge today is the need for more effective institutions," said Joachim von Amsberg, Indonesia country director for the World Bank.

"The CPS aims to help the government improve its existing programs and strengthen the institutions involved.

"When institutions are strengthened, the people win because budgets are then translated into more effective development outcomes: better schools, better health clinics and better livelihoods for the people."

The CPS also includes an expanding role for the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Bank's private sector arm, which expects new investments to exceed $300 million per year.

"Over the course of the CPS period, IFC will invest long-term capital and provide advice to increase access to financial services, improve infrastructure and strengthen commodity-based supply chains," said Adam Sack, Indonesia country manager for IFC.

"Working both at the national and subnational levels, IFC will also support government initiatives to improve the business environment."

The World Bank and IFC have long been active in supporting the country's development programs, including efforts to help strengthen regulatory frameworks through various surveys.

Only recently, the IFC issued a worldwide report on investment competitiveness, ranking Indonesia as less-than-favorable when it comes to doing business, as compared to many of its regional peers.

In the report, Indonesia is ranked 129th, far behind list-topping Singapore, Thailand (ranked 13th), Malaysia (20th) and Vietnam (92nd).

However, the country did book a 29-percent increase in realized investments in the first semester, compared to the previous year.

Intervensi Asing di Sektor Energi Terkuak

2008-09-06T16:09:00.000-07:00

Kompas, Jumat, 5 September 2008

Jakarta, Kompas - Adanya intervensi asing dalam pengelolaan energi nasional terus terkuak dalam pemanggilan saksi-saksi oleh Panitia Angket Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat.

Ichsanuddin Noorsy, sebagai saksi ahli di Panitia Angket, Kamis (4/9), menunjukkan sejumlah dokumen yang semakin menguatkan adanya intervensi asing tersebut.

Dokumen itu, antara lain, semacam radiogram (teletex) dari Washington kepada Duta Besar Amerika Serikat di Indonesia J Stapleton Roy untuk menyelesaikan pekerjaan-pekerjaan seperti tertulis di dokumen itu.

Dalam dokumen tersebut, antara lain, tertulis: naskah RUU Minyak dan Gas diharapkan dikaji ulang parlemen Indonesia pada bulan Januari. Dokumen itu dikategorikan confidential yang ditindih cap unclassified.

Ichsanuddin juga menyerahkan dokumen laporan Bank Dunia berjudul Proyek Energi Indonesia yang disiapkan 17 November 2000. Dalam dokumen itu tertulis nilai proyek 730 juta dollar AS. Sebanyak 310 juta dollar AS merupakan dana pemerintah dan 420 juta dollar AS di antaranya dari International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD).

Sebelumnya, Panitia Angket juga mendapatkan data bahwa USAID, lembaga swadaya AS, mengucurkan dana 21 juta dollar AS untuk asistensi revisi UU Migas. ”Diliberalkannya industri migas itu, selain tertuang di letter of intent, juga tertuang di ADB (Bank Pembangunan Asia), USAID, dan Bank Dunia,” ucap Ichsanuddin.

Menurut Ichsanuddin, yang paling diuntungkan dari adanya liberalisasi migas adalah kartel industri migas.

Panitia Angket menyambut gembira adanya dokumen-dokumen tersebut. ”Dokumen dan penjelasannya luar biasa,” ucap Effendy Choirie dari Fraksi Kebangkitan Bangsa.

Eva Kusuma Sundari dari Fraksi Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan bahkan mengaku sangat kaget dengan adanya dokumen-dokumen tersebut.

Menurut Dradjad Wibowo dari Fraksi Partai Amanat Nasional, dokumen-dokumen ini semakin mengindikasikan kuat bahwa pembuatan UU Migas sarat intervensi asing.

Panggil pejabat terkait

Untuk menelusuri sejauh mana intervensi asing ini memengaruhi pengambil kebijakan, Ichsanuddin merekomendasikan Panitia Angket memanggil semua pejabat yang terkait.

”Yang mestinya dipanggil, misalnya, Purnomo (Menteri Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral). Bagaimana undang-undang itu dibuat? Bagaimana Purnomo menggagas pencabutan subsidi yang ternyata cocok dengan dokumen tadi yang memerintahkan pencabutan subsidi?” kata Ichsanuddin.

Ia juga menyinggung Perpres Nomor 7 Tahun 2005 tentang Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional 2004-2009 yang mengatakan subsidi harus dikurangi bertahap.

”Panggil juga Bappenas, Sri Mulyani kenapa menggagas pencabutan subsidi?” ujarnya. (SUT)

sut

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/09/05/00160077/intervensi.asing.di.sektor.energi.terkuak

Indonesia Masuk "Perangkap Pangan"

2008-09-01T06:20:00.000-07:00

Kompas, Senin, 1 September 2008

Jakarta, Kompas - Indonesia sebagai bangsa agraris ternyata sudah masuk dalam ”perangkap pangan” atau food trap negara maju dan kapitalisme global. Tujuh komoditas pangan utama nonberas yang dikonsumsi masyarakat sangat bergantung pada impor.

Bahkan, empat dari tujuh komoditas pangan utama nonberas, yakni, gandum, kedelai, daging ayam ras, dan telur ayam ras, sudah masuk kategori kritis. Meskipun belum kritis, jagung, daging sapi, dan susu patut diwaspadai.

Menurut Ketua Umum Perhimpunan Ekonomi Pertanian Indonesia, yang juga guru besar sosial ekonomi pertanian Universitas Jember, Rudi Wibowo, krisis ini terjadi karena Indonesia tidak mampu mengatasi persoalan itu sejak dulu. ”Dari waktu ke waktu tidak ada perkembangan berarti untuk mengurangi ketergantungan pangan impor itu, justru sebaliknya malah makin parah,” kata Rudi, Sabtu (30/8) di Surabaya.

Meningkatnya ketergantungan ketahanan pangan negeri ini pada negara lain dapat dilihat dari naiknya volume impor pangan dalam bentuk komoditas maupun benih atau bibit.

Pada tahun 2000, Indonesia mengimpor gandum sebanyak 6,037 juta ton. Lima tahun kemudian, tahun 2005, impor gandum naik hampir 10 persen menjadi 6,589 juta ton. Tahun 2025, diproyeksikan impor gandum akan meningkat tiga kali lipat menjadi 18,679 juta ton. Impor kedelai dalam lima tahun terakhir (2003-2007) rata-rata 1.091 juta ton atau mencapai 60,5 persen dari total kebutuhan.

Untuk daging ayam ras, meskipun sebagian besar ayam usia sehari (day old chicken/DOC) diproduksi di dalam negeri, yaitu sebanyak 1,15 miliar ekor (2007), tetapi super induk ayam (grand parent stock/GPS) dan induk ayam (parent stock/PS)-nya diimpor dari negara maju.

Ketergantungan pada impor juga terjadi pada susu. Setiap tahun 70 persen kebutuhan susu diimpor dalam bentuk skim.

Untuk jagung, produksi tahun 2008 memang surplus. Namun, peningkatan produksi itu ditunjang oleh penggunaan benih jagung hibrida. Tahun 2008, penggunaan hibrida mencapai 43 persen dari total luas tanaman jagung nasional 3,5 juta hektar. ”Kondisi jagung lebih baik karena ada progres penggunaan teknologi,” kata Rudi.

Meskipun begitu, kebutuhan benih jagung hibrida sekitar 30.100 ton per tahun itu sebagian atau 43 persen bukan berasal dari perusahaan benih nasional atau petani penangkar, tetapi diproduksi oleh perusahaan multinasional, seperti Bayer Crop dan Dupont.

Ketergantungan pada impor juga terjadi pada daging sapi. Impor dalam bentuk daging dan jeroan beku per tahun mencapai 64.000 ton. Adapun impor sapi bakalan setiap tahun sekitar 600.000 ekor.

Peran negara kuat

Menanggapi situasi ketahanan pangan Indonesia, yang sangat bergantung pada impor, ahli peneliti utama kebijakan pertanian pada Pusat Analisis Sosial Ekonomi dan Kebijakan Pertanian (PSE-KP), Husein Sawit, mengakui, produksi dan perdagangan pangan dunia memang semakin terkonsentrasi ke negara-negara maju. Selain itu, peran perusahaan multinasional (MNCs) pun tambah kuat dan berpengaruh.

Untuk menguasai pasar produk pertanian negara berkembang, termasuk Indonesia, negara-negara maju itu melakukan politik dumping. AS dan Uni Eropa, misalnya, menyubsidi pertanian mereka agar komoditas yang dihasilkan dapat memenangi persaingan di pasar dunia.

Konsentrasi perdagangan pada industri raksasa dunia tampak dari peran MNCs yang menguasai industri hulu sarana produksi pertanian, seperti benih atau bibit, pupuk, dan pestisida. Tidak hanya di hulu, di hilir pun MNCs ”menggenggam” industri hilir pertanian, antara lain dalam industri pengolahan pangan.

Guna mendukung hegemoninya di pasar komoditas pangan, perusahaan multinasional juga mengembangkan ”revolusi” ritel melalui hipermarket dan perdagangan ritel pangan di negara berkembang. Braun dalam hasil penelitiannya di International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) memperkirakan, total penjualan 10 perusahaan MNCs global untuk sarana produksi pertanian mencapai 40 miliar dollar AS, industri pengolahan dan perdagangan pangan 409 miliar dollar AS, dan industri pengecer 1.091 miliar dollar AS (lihat tabel).

Negara berkembang, seperti Indonesia, hanya kebagian menjadi buruh tanam untuk sarana produksi yang dihasilkan MNCs. Hasil produksi petani dan buruh tani Indonesia itu diolah dan diperdagangkan oleh industri pengolahan pangan yang juga milik perusahaan multinasional. Selanjutnya hasil produksi itu diperdagangkan melalui perusahaan ritel, yang juga milik perusahaan multinasional, kepada konsumen, yaitu masyarakat Indonesia, termasuk petani.

Perusahaan Monsanto dari AS, misalnya, dalam 10 tahun terakhir memasok berbagai jenis benih, seperti jagung, kapas, dan sayuran. Laboratorium pembibitannya tidak hanya terdapat di AS, tetapi di ratusan lokasi di dunia.

Syngenta (Swiss), mencatat kenaikan penjualan benih 20 persen pada semester I-2008, yakni menjadi 7,3 miliar dollar AS, dibandingkan semester I-2007. Saat ini Syngenta memiliki 300 benih terdaftar dan 500 varietas benih komersial.

Rudi mengingatkan, Indonesia akan semakin bergantung pada pangan impor. ”Apabila sewaktu-waktu terjadi gejolak pangan impor di tengah sektor riil banyak bergantung pada bahan baku impor, hal itu akan membahayakan perekonomian nasional.

Daya saing rendah

Ketua Dewan Pertimbangan Organisasi Himpunan Kerukunan Tani Indonesia Siswono Yudo Husodo mengatakan, tingginya ketergantungan pada pangan impor karena rendahnya daya saing dan kesiapan teknologi pertanian. Gandum, misalnya, kebutuhan terhadap komoditas ini terus meningkat. Saat ini konsumsi gandum per kapita per tahun mencapai 10 kilogram. Padahal, gandum bukan komoditas unggulan negeri ini.

”Arah diversifikasi konsumsi pangan kita keliru. Salah satu sebabnya, kebijakan pemerintah yang kurang pas,” ujarnya.

Siswono mengingatkan, Indonesia tengah digiring masuk dalam perangkap pangan negara maju dan MNCs. Ironisnya, pemerintah justru memberikan jalan bagi mereka untuk ”mencengkeram” negeri ini.

Hal itu, antara lain, tampak dari dibebaskannya bea masuk impor gandum dan kedelai. Kebijakan itu, menurut Siswono, menunjukkan bahwa pemerintah hanya berpikir jangka pendek.

Menanggapi ketergantungan pangan, Kepala Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Departemen Pertanian Gatot Irianto mengatakan, di tengah arus globalisasi Indonesia memang tidak bisa 100 persen mandiri. Memang ada ketergantungan, tetapi masih dalam batas yang bisa dikontrol.

Artinya bila sewaktu-waktu ada kenaikan harga pangan global, Indonesia masih bisa menyediakan pangan. Menjadi berbahaya bila ketergantungan sudah sepenuhnya terjadi.

Di bidang penelitian, kata Gatot, sebenarnya Indonesia tidak kalah. Banyak varietas unggul bermutu benih kedelai yang memiliki produktivitas tinggi. Namun, peningkatan produksi kedelai tidak bisa dilakukan dalam waktu singkat. Harus bertahap.

Terkait dengan bibit unggas, sudah ada sejumlah investor yang tertarik menanamkan modal di Indonesia dalam produksi GPS dan PS. Teknologi pembibitan unggas juga terus dikembangkan. Meskipun begitu, keberadaan usaha kecil ayam kampung juga harus tetap dilestarikan agar Indonesia memiliki ketahanan pangan untuk daging ayam dan telur. (MAS/JOE)

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/09/01/0023293/indonesia.masuk.perangkap.pangan

Ada Intervensi Asing di Penyusunan UU Migas

2008-08-27T20:35:00.000-07:00

Print Send Close

KOMPAS/SUTTA DHARMASAPUTRA
Pengamat perminyakan, Kurtubi (kanan) dan Wahyudin Yudiana Ardiwinata, mengucapkan sumpah sebagai saksi ahli sebelum menyampaikan keterangan kepada Panitia Angket Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat tentang kenaikan harga bahan bakar minyak. Pengambilan sumpah dilakukan rohaniwan Kepala Kantor Wilayah Departemen Agama Abdul Gafur di Gedung Nusantara III DPR, Rabu (27/8).

Kamis, 28 Agustus 2008 | 03:00 WIB

Jakarta, Kompas - Panitia Angket Bahan Bakar Minyak Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat menemukan fakta baru. Saksi ahli yang dihadirkan menduga ada intervensi asing dalam penyusunan Undang-Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak dan Gas.

Pengamat perminyakan Kurtubi menyampaikan keyakinannya itu pada sidang Panitia Angket yang berlangsung tertutup di Gedung Nusantara II DPR, Rabu (27/8).

Sidang menghadirkan dua saksi ahli. Selain Kurtubi, pengamat perminyakan Wahyudin Yudiana Ardiwinata juga memberi keterangan. Sebelum memberikan keterangan, keduanya disumpah lebih dulu. Sidang dipimpin Ketua Panitia Angket Zulkifli Hasan dari Fraksi Partai Amanat Nasional (PAN).

Keyakinan Kurtubi itu dikuatkan panitia angket dari PAN, Dradjad Wibowo. Seusai mendengarkan pandangan Kurtubi, Dradjad yang juga seorang ekonom menyerahkan sejumlah dokumen yang dimilikinya.

Dokumen yang diserahkan itu adalah Program Reformasi Sektor Energi yang diambil dari situs USAID. Di sana disebutkan bahwa USAID membiayai perbantuan teknis dan pelatihan (technical assistance and training) dalam mengimplementasikan UU Migas, Kelistrikan, dan Energi Geotermal.

Dalam dokumen itu juga tertulis, ”These laws were drafted with USAID assistance (UU ini dirancang dengan bantuan USAID).”

Dana yang dialirkan USAID untuk pembahasan UU Migas dan turunannya, selama kurun waktu 2001-2004, adalah 21,1 juta dollar AS atau sekitar Rp 200 miliar.

Namun, ke mana saja dana itu mengalir, menurut Zulkifli, Panitia Angket belum bisa memastikannya. ”Dana itu dikeluarkan ke mana-mana. Kami belum dapat,” ujarnya kepada pers.

Konseptor harus dipanggil

Seusai sidang, Kurtubi juga menegaskan kembali keyakinannya itu saat ditemui pers. Menurut dia, inefisiensi tata kelola minyak saat ini adalah dampak dari UU Migas No 22/2001. ”Inisiator UU Migas itu dari International Monetary Fund lewat letter of intent. IMF mengharuskan Indonesia mengubah UU Migas-nya. IMF menyodorkan UU Migas. Jadi, pasti ada intervensi asing,” ujarnya.

Atas dasar itu, Kurtubi juga merekomendasikan Panitia Angket segera merombak UU Migas No 22/2001 dan memanggil semua pejabat yang terlibat dalam penyusunan UU itu.

”UU Migas itu konseptornya pasti orang Indonesia juga. Mungkin, beliau-beliau itu masih ada di Departemen Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral, Pertamina, atau tempat lain,” ungkapnya.

Pejabat yang harus dipanggil itu adalah Menteri ESDM Purnomo Yusgiantoro, Kepala BP Migas sejak Rachmat Sudibyo sampai sekarang, Direksi Pertamina, serta Tim Konseptor UU Migas dan Tim Penjualan LNG Tangguh.

Mafia perminyakan juga harus diberantas karena mereka ini yang menyebabkan inefisiensi BBM nasional, terutama dalam manajemen impor.

Menurut Zulkifli, saksi ahli juga menyebutkan bahwa pihak yang paling diuntungkan dari adanya UU Migas No 22/2001 ini adalah para trader minyak. (sut)

sut

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/08/28/0025442/ada.intervensi.asing.di.penyusunan.uu.migas

Landasan Teori Tentang Nasionalisme Dalam Globalisasi

2008-08-13T17:57:00.000-07:00

- Indonesia Sudah Dihabisi Sejak November 1967
Senin, 23 Juni 08 - by : admi

Sejak lama sudah ada banyak ilmuwan yang memperingatkan bahwa kita hendaknya tidak terlampau fanatik dan keblinger tentang globalisasi yang dikaitkan dengan borderless world dan liberalisme mutlak.

Robert Reich adalah guru besar pada Harvard University dan pernah menjabat sebagai Menteri Tenaga Kerja dalam Kabinet Presiden Clinton. Dia menulis buku dengan judul "The Works of Nations."

Dia mengemukakan bahwa penduduk setiap negara terdiri dari tiga kelompok. Sebuah kelompok sangat kecil terdiri dari orang-orang yang super pandai, yang bisa melihat dan memanfaatkan celah-celah yang ada di mana saja di dunia sebagai peluang buat bisnisnya. Kelompok ini olehnya disebut system analyst. Mereka tidak tergantung pada satu negara, sehingga dalam kehidupannya sehari-hari mereka memang kosmopolit yang tidak mengenal batas-batas negara dalam kiprahnya sebagai pengusaha transnasional.

Kelompok kedua sudah cukup besar jumlahnya, yang merupakan elit bangsanya. Mereka berpendidikan tinggi dengan pendapatan atau gaji yang tinggi. Mereka adalah kaum profesional yang bekerja sebagai majikannya sendiri, tetapi tidak menggunakan modalnya. Mereka adalah para dokter, akuntan, pengacara, notaris, ahli pajak, guru besar, peneliti dan para CEO dari perusahaan-perusahaan besar dan sejenisnya. Mereka disebut In Person Workers, yang sudah sangat terkait dengan negaranya. Mereka mempunyai mobilitas nasional, tetapi pekerjaannya melayani orang lain yang terikat pada lingkungannya. Pada umumnya, pemerintah setiap negara mempunyai peraturan dan pengaturan yang berbeda-beda, sehingga kalau mereka ingin pindah berpraktek di negara lain, mereka harus menyesuaikan diri dengan norma, peraturan dan pengaturan yang berlaku di negara yang bersangkutan, yang disebut "adaptasi" atau "aklimatisasi". Para dokter, akuntan, notaris dan pengacara kita yang lulus dari universitas di luar negeri sudah harus mengalami proses adaptasi yang dikaitkan dengan ujian dan perizinan. Maka mobilitas internasional mereka sudah sangat terbatas dibandingkan dengan para system analysts.

Kelompok yang sangat besar jumlahnya adalah para buruh pabrik, tambang dan pekerja kasar pada umumnya. Mereka disebut Routine Workers yang keterkaitan dengan negaranya hampir mutlak. Walaupun ada gejala migrasi tenaga kerja, jumlahnya sangat kecil.

Dengan demikian tidak mungkin nasionalisme musnah. Kalaupun para system analysts sedang menikmati hidupnya di negara tertentu di mana kaum routine workers-nya terlampau menderita, mereka akan melakukan revolusi sosial yang mengancam jiwa para system analysts dan in person workers.

Ruud Lubbers

Ruud Lubbers pernah menjabat sebagai Menteri Ekonomi Belanda selama 4 tahun dan kemudian sebagai Perdana Menteri selama 12 tahun. Setelah itu pernah menjabat sebagai guru besar dalam mata kuliah globalisasi pada Harvard University dan Universitas di Tilburg.

Dia mengatakan bahwa esensi globalisasi adalah mekanisme pasar yang diterapkan pada seluruh dunia. Kita mengetahui bahwa tidak ada negara bangsa yang beradab dan tertib serta mempunyai kandungan keadilan yang memadai, tanpa peraturan dan pengaturan yang menghindari atau memagari diri terhadap ekses-ekses dari mekanisme pasar yang paling asli dan paling primitif. Kita belum mempunyai pemerintah dengan segala perangkat peraturan dan pengaturannya yang berlaku untuk seluruh dunia.

Karena itu, selama itu pula setiap negara bangsa mempunyai pemerintahan sendiri-sendiri, mempunyai peraturan dan pengaturannya sendiri, mempunyai tata nilai dan latar belakang kebudayaannya sendiri-sendiri. Walaupun gejala globalisasi diakui keberadaannya karena adanya revolusi mobilitas informasi, yang dinamakan borderless world dalam arti yang mutlak tidak ada.

Keblingerlah mereka yang berpendapat bahwa nasionalisme sudah mati.

Nasionalisme tidak picik dan bukan katak dalam tempurung

Manusia yang hakikatnya adalah makluk sosial tidak bisa hidup tanpa adanya keterkaitan dengan manusia lainnya. Ikatan yang paling kecil dan paling erat adalah keluarganya. Kalau orang mencintai anak isterinya melebihi saudara kandungnya tidak berarti yang bersangkutan membenci saudara kandungnya. Dalam keluarga itulah setiap manusia menggunakan kekuatan sinergi yang ada untuk bersama-sama memakmurkan dan mensejahterakan keluarganya secara adil.

Ikatan seperti dalam satu keluarga kita jumpai dalam kelompok yang lebih besar, seperti desa, kota, propinsi dan negara.

Bangsa yang mementingkan dirinya melebihi kepentingan bangsa lain tidak berarti picik, egosentris, katak dalam tempurung dan tidak mengerti adanya perubahan-perubahan dalam mobilitas dunia. Namun pemahaman-pemahaman ini tidak dapat memusnahkan eksistensi sebuah bangsa.

Namun tergantung pada pemimpinnya yang sedang berkuasa, kita juga mengenali sebuah bangsa lebih kuat yang menggunakan kekuatannya untuk menghisap dan bahkan menghabisi bangsa lain yang lebih lemah. Maka dalam setiap zaman kita mengenali adanya negara bangsa yang menjadi imperilais. Negara bangsa lain yang membentengi dirinya agar tidak menjadi target dan korban penghisapan oleh negara imperilais tidak berarti picik dan bagaikan katak dalam tempurung.

Indonesia sudah mulai dihabisi di bulan November 1967

Liberalisasi dan penggerojokan utang sebagai alat pengendali di Indonesia langsung saja dimulai di bulan November 1967, yang digambarkan oleh Jeffrey Winters, Bradley Simpson, John Pilgers dan John Perkins dengan butir-butir sebagai berikut.

"Dalam dunia ini, yang tidak dilihat oleh bagian terbesar dari kami yang hidup di belahan utara dunia, cara perampokan yang canggih telah memaksa lebih dari sembilan puluh negara masuk ke dalam program penyesuaian struktural sejak tahun delapan puluhan, yang membuat kesenjangan antara kaya dan miskin semakin menjadi lebar. Ini terkenal dengan istilah "nation building"dan "good governance" oleh "empat serangkai" yang mendominasi World Trade Organization (Amerika Serikat, Eropa, Canada dan Jepang), dan triumvirat Washington (Bank Dunia, IMF dan Departemen Keuangan AS) yang mengendalikan setiap aspek detail dari kebijakan pemerintah di negara-negara berkembang. Kekuasaan mereka diperoleh dari utang yang belum terbayar, yang memaksa negara-negara termiskin membayar $ 100 juta per hari kepada para kreditur barat. Akibatnya adalah sebuah dunia, di mana elit yang kurang dari satu milyar orang menguasai 80% dari kekayaan seluruh umat manusia."

Saya ulangi sekali lagi paragraf yang sangat relevan dan krusial, yaitu yang berbunyi :

"Their power derives largely from an unrepayable debt that forces the poorest countries...." atau "Kekuatan negara-negara penghisap didasarkan atas utang besar yang tidak mampu dibayar oleh negara-negara target penghisapan."

John Pilger mengutip temuan, pernyataan dan wawancara dengan Jeffrey Winters maupun Brad Simpson. Jeffrey Winters dalam bukunya yang berjudul Power in Motion dan Brad Simpson dalam disertasinya mempelajari dokumen-dokumen tentang hubungan Indonesia dan dunia Barat yang baru saja menjadi tidak rahasia, karena masa kerahasiaannya menjadi kadaluwarsa.

Saya kutip halaman 37 yang mengatakan : "Dalam bulan November 1967, menyusul tertangkapnya 'hadiah terbesar', hasil tangkapannya dibagi. The Time-Life Corporation mensponsori konferensi istimewa di Jenewa yang dalam waktu tiga hari merancang pengambilalihan Indonesia. Para pesertanya meliputi para kapitalis yang paling berkuasa di dunia, orang-orang seperti David Rockefeller. Semua raksasa korporasi Barat diwakili : perusahaan-perusahaan minyak dan bank, General Motors, Imperial Chemical Industries, British Leyland, British American Tobacco, American Express, Siemens, Goodyear, The International Paper Corporation, US Steel. Di seberang meja adalah orang-orangnya Soeharto yang oleh Rockefeller disebut "ekonom-ekonom Indonesia yang top."

"Di Jenewa, Tim Indonesia terkenal dengan sebutan the Berkeley Mafia, karena beberapa di antaranya pernah menikmati beasiswa dari pemerintah Amerika Serikat untuk belajar di Universitas California di Berkeley. Mereka datang sebagai peminta-minta yang menyuarakan hal-hal yang diinginkan oleh para majikan yang hadir. Menyodorkan butir-butir yang dijual dari negara dan bangsanya, Tim Widjojo Nitisastro menawarkan : buruh murah yang melimpah, cadangan besar dari sumber daya alam .. pasar yang besar."

Di halaman 39 ditulis : "Pada hari kedua, ekonomi Indonesia telah dibagi, sektor demi sektor. Ini dilakukan dengan cara yang spektakuler" kata Jeffrey Winters, guru besar pada Northwestern University, Chicago, yang dengan mahasiwanya yang sedang bekerja untuk gelar doktornya, Brad Simpson telah mempelajari dokumen-dokumen konferensi. "Mereka membaginya ke dalam lima seksi : pertambangan di satu kamar, jasa-jasa di kamar lain, industri ringan di kamar lain, perbankan dan keuangan di kamar lain lagi; yang dilakukan oleh Chase Manhattan duduk dengan sebuah delegasi yang mendiktekan kebijakan-kebijakan yang dapat diterima oleh mereka dan para investor lainnya. Kita saksikan para pemimpin korporasi besar ini berkeliling dari satu meja ke meja yang lain, mengatakan : ini yang kami inginkan : ini, ini dan ini, dan mereka pada dasarnya merancang infrastruktur hukum untuk berinvestasi di Indonesia. Saya tidak pernah mendengar situasi seperti itu sebelumnya, di mana modal global duduk dengan para wakil dari negara yang diasumsikan sebagai negara berdaulat dan merancang persyaratan buat masuknya investasi mereka ke dalam negaranya sendiri.

Freeport mendapatkan bukit (mountain) dengan tembaga di Papua Barat (Henry Kissinger duduk dalam board). Sebuah konsorsium Eropa mendapat nikel Papua Barat. Sang raksasa Alcoa mendapat bagian terbesar dari bauksit Indonesia. Sekelompok perusahaan-perusahaan Amerika, Jepang dan Perancis mendapat hutan-hutan tropis di Sumatra, Papua Barat dan Kalimantan. Sebuah undang-undang tentang penanaman modal asing yang dengan buru-buru disodorkan kepada Soeharto membuat perampokan ini bebas pajak untuk lima tahun lamanya. Nyata dan secara rahasia, kendali dari ekonomi Indonesia pergi ke Inter Governmental Group on Indonesia (IGGI), yang anggota-anggota intinya adalah Amerika Serikat, Canada, Eropa, Australia dan, yang terpenting, Dana Moneter Internasional dan Bank Dunia.

Hadirin Yth.,

Kalau kita percaya John Pilger, Brad Simpson dan Jeffrey Winters, sejak tahun 1967 Indonesia sudah mulai dihabisi (plundered) dengan tuntunan oleh bangsa Indonesia sendiri yang ketika itu.

Benarkah sinyalemen John Pilger, Joseph Stiglitz dan masih banyak ekonom AS kenamaam lainnya bahwa utanglah yang dijadikan instrumen untuk mencengkeram Indonesia?

The Economic Hitmen

Dalam rangka ini izinkanlah saya mengutip buku yang menggemparkan. Buku ini ditulis oleh John Perkins dengan judul The Confessions of an Economic Hitman, atau "Pengakuan seorang Perusak Ekonomi." Buku ini tercantum dalam New York Times bestseller list selama 7 minggu.

Saya kutip sambil menterjemahkannya ke dalam bahasa Indonesia sebagai berikut.

Halaman 12 : "Saya hanya mengetahui bahwa penugasan pertama saya di Indonesia, dan saya salah seorang dari sebuah tim yang terdiri dari 11 orang yang dikirim untuk menciptakan cetak biru rencana pembangunan pembangkit listrik buat pulau Jawa."

Halaman 13 : "Saya tau bahwa saya harus menghasilkan model ekonomterik untuk Indonesia dan Jawa." "Saya mengetahui bahwa statistik dapat dimanipulasi untuk menghasilkan banyak kesimpulan, termasuk apa yang dikehendaki oleh analis atas dasar statistik yang dibuatnya."

Halaman 15 : "Pertama-tama saya harus memberikan pembenaran (justification) untuk memberikan utang yang sangat besar jumlahnya yang akan disalurkan kembali ke MAIN (perusahaan konsutan di mana John Perkins bekerja) dan perusahan-perusahaan Amerika lainnya (seperti Bechtel, Halliburton, Stone & Webster, dan Brown & Root) melalui penjualan proyek-proyek raksasa dalam bidang rekayasa dan konstruksi. Kedua, saya harus membangkrutkan negara yang menerima pinjaman tersebut (tentunya setelah MAIN dan kontraktor Amerika lainnya telah dibayar), agar negara target itu untuk selamanya tercengkeram oleh kreditornya, sehingga negara pengutang (baca : Indonesia) menjadi target yang empuk kalau kami membutuhkan ,favours, termasuk basis-basis militer, suara di PBB, atau akses pada minyak dan sumber daya alam lainnya."

Halaman 15-16 : "Aspek yang harus disembunyikan dari semua proyek tersebut ialah membuat laba sangat besar buat para kontraktor, dan membuat bahagia beberapa gelintir keluarga dari negara-negara penerima utang yang sudah kaya dan berpengaruh di negaranya masing-masing. Dengan demikian ketergantungan keuangan negara penerima utang menjadi permanen sebagai instrumen untuk memperoleh kesetiaan dari pemerintah-pemerintah penerima utang. Maka semakin besar jumlah utang semakin baik. Kenyataan bahwa beban utang yang sangat besar menyengsarakan bagian termiskin dari bangsanya dalam bidang kesehatan, pendidikan dan jasa-jasa sosial lainnya selama berpuluh-puluh tahun tidak perlu masuk dalam pertimbangan."

Halaman 15 : "Faktor yang paling menentukan adalah Pendapatan Domestik Bruto (PDB). Proyek yang memberi kontribusi terbesar terhadap pertumbuhan PDB harus dimenangkan. Walaupun hanya satu proyek yang harus dimenangkan, saya harus menunjukkan bahwa membangun proyek yang bersangkutan akan membawa manfaat yang unggul pada pertumbuhan PDB."

Halaman 16 : "Claudia dan saya mendiskusikan karakteristik dari PDB yang menyesatkan. Misalnya pertumbuhan PDB bisa terjadi walaupun hanya menguntungkan satu orang saja, yaitu yang memiliki perusahaan jasa publik, dengan membebani utang yang sangat berat buat rakyatnya. Yang kaya menjadi semakin kaya dan yang miskin menjadi semakin miskin. Statistik akan mencatatnya sebagai kemajuan ekonomi."

Halaman 19 : "Sangat menguntungkan buat para penyusun strategi karena di tahun-tahun enam puluhan terjadi revolusi lainnya, yaitu pemberdayaan perusahaan-perusahaan internasional dan organisasi-organisasi multinasional seperti Bank Dunia dan IMF."

Bab tiga khusus tentang Indonesia dengan judul : "Indonesia, pelajaran buat Penghancur Ekonomi."

Halaman 21 : "Prioritas dari kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat ialah supaya Suharto melayani Washington seperti yang dilakukan oleh Shah Iran. AS juga mengharapkan bahwa Indonesia akan menjadi model buat negara-negara di sekitarnya. Washington mendasarkan sebagian dari strateginya pada asumsi bahwa manfaat yang diperoleh dari Indonesia akan mempunyai dampak positif pada seluruh dunia Islam, terutama di Timur Tengah yang eksplosif. Dan kalau itu tidak cukup, Indonesia mempunyai minyak. Tidak seorangpun yang mengetahui dengan pasti tentang besarnya dan kualitas dari cadangan minyaknya, tetapi para ahli seismologi sangat antusias tentang kemungkinan-kemungkinannya."

Halaman 28 : "Akhirnya kepada kami diberikan keanggotaan dari Bandung Golf & Racket Club yang ekslusif, dan kami bekerja dalam kantor cabang Bandung dari Perusahaan Umum Listrik Negara (PLN), perusahaan listrik yang dimiliki oleh pemerintah."

Dari sanalah John Perkins dengan Tim-nya beroperasi, yang didukung sepenuhnya oleh para anak bangsa yang menjadi pengkhianat terhadap rakyat dan bangsanya sendiri.

Oleh Kwik Kian Gie

Versi Online : http://www.koraninternet.com/?pilih=lihat&id=6341

Krisis Pangan dan Inflasi

2008-08-10T05:47:00.000-07:00

GETTY IMAGES/ERIC THAYER
Rakyat mengantre makanan di depan Gereja Saint Clare s Haiti, 30 April 2008.

Kompas, Jumat, 8 Agustus 2008 | 03:00 WIB

Dunia saat ini tengah mengalami demam akibat gelombang pasang inflasi. Lonjakan harga minyak mentah, komoditas pangan, dan komoditas lain, membuat inflasi di 50 dari 110 negara, menurut data Goldman Sachs yang dikutip Newsweek, sudah di atas dua digit. di Beberapa negara bahkan sudah terjadi hiperinflasi.

Di Vietnam inflasi tahun ini diprediksikan 26 persen. Di Zimbabwe inflasi sudah mencapai 164.900 persen, Venezuela 30 persen, Kenya 27 persen, Pakistan 19,3 persen, dan India 11 persen. Di Indonesia inflasi yang tahun lalu hanya 6,59 persen, tahun ini diperkirakan 11,5-12,5 persen, bahkan bisa lebih tinggi.

Sepertiga negara berkembang sekarang ini, menurut Bank Dunia, mencatat inflasi di atas 10 persen dan di 21 negara inflasi meningkat sudah lebih dari 5 persen. Dari catatan Bank Dunia, ini adalah yang pertama kalinya sejak tahun 1973, lonjakan harga minyak dan komoditas pangan terjadi secara berbarengan.

Kombinasi kenaikan harga dua komoditas ini sangat memukul, terutama untuk negara-negara miskin, dengan dampak ke perekonomian nasional di lebih dari 15 negara sedang berkembang mencapai 10 persen lebih dari produk domestik bruto. Sementara itu, ruang manuver secara makroekonomi untuk bisa merespons kondisi tersebut juga sangat terbatas.

Dampak paling riil dari lonjakan harga tersebut adalah meningkatnya tekanan inflasi, membengkaknya defisit anggaran pendapatan dan belanja pemerintah yang mengakibatkan menyusutnya pula anggaran untuk subsidi kelompok miskin. Hal itu selanjutnya kian membahayakan kelompok miskin, kelompok yang paling rentan terhadap lonjakan harga.

Bagi perekonomian global, itu juga mengancam pertumbuhan dan membuat berbagai kemajuan yang telah dicapai, terutama dalam pemberantasan kemiskinan di banyak negara miskin, juga terancam lenyap dalam sesaat. Jumlah penduduk miskin diperkirakan meningkat dari 73 juta jiwa menjadi 105 juta jiwa.

Sejak Januari 2006 harga terigu tercatat sudah melonjak lebih dari dua kali lipat, dengan 60 persen lebih kenaikannya terjadi sejak Januari 2008. Untuk beras, bahkan harga sudah naik tiga kali lipat lebih hanya dalam kurun Januari-Mei 2008. Untuk jagung, kenaikan 125 persen dan kedelai 107 persen.

Sementara itu, harga minyak mentah naik dari hanya 20 dollar AS per barrel pada tahun 2001 menjadi di atas 140 dollar AS per barrel sekarang ini. Sejak Januari 2008 saja harga minyak sudah naik lebih dari dua kali lipat. Lonjakan harga komoditas pangan ini terjadi karena kombinasi berbagai faktor, baik itu struktural maupun nonstruktural.

Faktor-faktor itu, yakni naiknya harga energi dan pupuk, depresiasi nilai tukar dollar AS, konversi dalam skala masif komoditas pangan ke bahan bakar nabati (biofuel), serta menyusutnya stok pangan (biji-bijian) global sebagai akibat dari perubahan kebijakan menyangkut buffer stock di AS dan Uni Eropa. Ini masih ditambah dengan kekeringan di Australia dan meningkatnya permintaan dari berbagai negara.

Di luar semua faktor tersebut, masih ada peranan spekulan, yakni para hedge funds dan investor komoditas yang juga ikut memicu kenaikan harga.

Semua faktor tadi masih ditambah dengan kebijakan beberapa negara eksportir dan importir utama pangan yang sifatnya kontraproduktif. Termasuk larangan ekspor beras oleh India dan China atau larangan impor gandum oleh Argentina, Kazakhstan, dan Rusia. Larangan ekspor dalam rangka mengamankan pasar dalam negeri ini segera diikuti oleh negara-negara produsen lain, seperti Vietnam dan Mesir, untuk beras sehingga membuat pasokan di pasar dunia menipis dan harga kian melonjak.

Begitu juga aksi importir beras besar, seperti Filipina yang mengadakan tender besar-besaran pengadaan beras impor di tengah kepanikan dunia, juga menjadi pemicu.

Bertanggung jawab

Menurut Bank Dunia dan PBB, AS dan Uni Eropa adalah pihak yang paling pantas disalahkan atas lonjakan harga pangan yang menempatkan lebih dari 100 juta penduduk dunia dalam ancaman kelaparan sekarang ini.

Laporan Bank Dunia yang sempat bocor menyebutkan, 75 persen kenaikan harga komoditas pangan akhir-akhir ini adalah akibat konversi komoditas pangan ke bahan bakar nabati. Sementara itu, meningkatnya permintaan negara-negara berkembang, seperti India dan China yang sering dituding AS sebagai pemicu kenaikan harga pangan, justru tidak banyak berpengaruh pada harga.

Kebijakan Pemerintahan AS dan Uni Eropa yang merangsang produksi biofuel, termasuk lewat pemberian subsidi, membatasi impor, dan mewajibkan penggunaan biofuel di dalam negeri, memicu konversi secara besar-besaran penggunaan komoditas pangan untuk bahan bakar nabati. Di AS sendiri, 40 persen produksi jagung untuk etanol.

Bank Dunia, USDA, Organisasi Kerja Sama Ekonomi dan Pembangunan (OECD), serta Organisasi Pangan dan Pertanian (FAO) memprediksikan kecenderungan naiknya harga pangan masih akan berlangsung hingga 2009 sebelum akhirnya mulai menurun, kendati tak akan pernah bisa kembali ke level sebelum 2007.

Jean Ziegler, Pelapor Khusus PBB untuk hak atas pangan, menyebut, konversi ke biofuel dengan mengorbankan akses pangan bagi jutaan penduduk miskin sebagai kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan (crime against humanity). (sri hartati samhadi)

sri hartati samhadi

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/08/08/01291587/krisis.pangan.dan.inflasi

Dunia Dikendalikan Penguasa Modal

2008-08-10T05:44:00.000-07:00

Kompas, Jumat, 8 Agustus 2008 | 03:00 WIB

Lonjakan harga komoditas di pasar global yang menyengsarakan jutaan penduduk miskin dunia dan banyak negara berkembang ternyata justru membuat banyak pihak berpesta pora. Di antara mereka, siapa lagi kalau bukan para spekulan, mulai dari hedge funds, fund management, dana pensiun, bank-bank investasi dan lembaga keuangan lain, hingga investor individu.

Sorotan tajam terhadap peran spekulan dalam memicu krisis energi dan krisis pangan global serta krisis finansial di AS sekarang ini ibaratnya hanya mengungkap sebagian sisi gelap rezim kapitalisme, globalisasi, dan liberalisasi perekonomian global.

Ada sekelompok kecil penguasa kapital atau kaum berpunya yang mengendalikan dunia lewat pasar modal, pasar uang, pasar obligasi, pasar komoditas, dan juga lewat pengaruh mereka terhadap otoritas pemerintahan dan pasar finansial.

Para spekulan ini diyakini berperan penting dalam memicu lonjakan harga komoditas, mulai dari minyak mentah, logam dan mineral, pangan, hingga komoditas bahan mentah lainnya. Krisis energi dan komoditas pangan membuat mereka semakin gemuk. Dan dengan dana triliunan dollar AS yang ada dalam genggaman mereka, mereka memiliki potensi destabilisasi yang luar biasa.

Keuntungan besar yang mereka tangguk dari transaksi itu menjadi semacam sinyalemen pembenaran bahwa globalisasi dan liberalisasi ekonomi dunia adalah zero sum game, medan permainan yang hanya melahirkan segelintir pemenang di atas penderitaan banyak pihak lainnya.

Sejak Januari 2008, Bursa Saham Chicago (Chicago Stock Exchange/CHX) mencatat kenaikan aktivitas investasi di sektor komoditas pertanian sebesar 25 persen, dengan keterlibatan hedge funds meningkat tiga kali lipat dalam dua tahun terakhir menjadi 55 miliar dollar AS.

Pelarian dana miliaran dollar AS (beberapa menyebut triliunan dollar AS) yang dikelola lembaga-lembaga tersebut ke sektor perdagangan komoditas terutama dipicu oleh krisis kredit macet sektor perumahan AS (sub-prime mortgage) dan depresiasi nilai tukar dollar AS.

Mereka beralih dari investasi berisiko tinggi di surat berharga ke instrumen yang lebih aman, termasuk emas dan minyak serta komoditas lunak seperti pangan.

Menurut penulis buku The Seeds of Destruction, William Engdahl, sedikitnya 60 persen dari harga minyak mentah sekarang ini berasal dari spekulasi perdagangan berjangka (futures) yang selama ini tak diregulasi oleh para hedge funds, bank, dan lembaga keuangan lain.

Itu dilakukan dengan menggunakan instrumen transaksi berjangka ICE Futures (London) dan NYMEX (New York) dan transaksi Over-The-Counter atau antarbank yang memang tak terkontrol guna menghindari kecurigaan.

Di antara pemain utama pasar spekulasi untuk minyak mentah ini, menurut Engdahl, adalah Goldman Sachs; Morgan Stanley; British Petroleum; bank Perancis, Societe Generale (SG); bank terbesar AS, Bank of America; dan bank Swiss, Mercuria.

Selama ini, BP mengendalikan International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yang berbasis di London, yang merupakan salah satu bursa transaksi futures dan options untuk energi terbesar di dunia. Di antara pemegang saham utama IPE adalah Goldman Sachs dan Morgan Stanley.

Menurut surat kabar Jerman, Der Spiegel, Morgan Stanley adalah salah satu aktor kelembagaan utama di IPE. Sementara surat kabar Perancis, Le Monde, menyebutkan, SG bersama dengan Bank of America dan Deutsche Bank terlibat dalam menyebarkan rumor-rumor yang dimaksudkan untuk mendorong melonjaknya harga minyak.

Untuk pasar biji-bijian, aktor utama adalah Cargill dan Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). Keduanya menguasai pangsa pasar biji-bijian yang sangat besar. Mereka juga terlibat dalam transaksi spekulatif, baik futures maupun options, di NYMEX dan Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT).

Di AS, Cargill, ADM, dan pesaing mereka, Zen Noh, menguasai 81 persen ekspor maize dan 65 persen ekspor kedelai (Greg Muttitt, Control Freaks, Cargill and ADM, The Ecologist, Maret 2001).

Aktor utama

Aktivitas spekulasi komoditas ini melahirkan banyak orang kaya baru. Tetapi, yang paling gemuk tentu saja kelompok elite keuangan Wall Street dan korporasi besar yang selama ini menguasai pasar komoditas, mengendalikan input atau yang memiliki pengetahuan luas soal kondisi perdagangan.

Etika dan moral tidak lagi menjadi pertimbangan mereka, aktivitas mereka semata digerakkan oleh kerakusan dan keinginan untuk meraup untung sebesar-besarnya. Di antara mereka adalah jaringan ritel besar seperti Wal Mart dan Carrefour yang meraup laba masing-masing 4,1 miliar dollar AS dan 1,87 miliar euro dari penjualan produk pangan.

Perusahaan agribisnis seperti Monsanto juga mencatat lonjakan keuntungan dari 255 juta dollar AS tahun 2005 menjadi 993 juta dollar AS tahun 2007. Laba meningkat dari 1,44 miliar dollar menjadi 2,22 miliar dollar AS. Sementara pendapatan bersih tiga bulan hingga akhir Februari 2008 melonjak menjadi 1,125 miliar dollar AS dibandingkan periode sama tahun sebelumnya (543 juta dollar AS).

Hal sama dialami raksasa agribisnis lain, yakni Cargill, yang pendapatan bersihnya meningkat 86 persen dari 553 juta dollar AS menjadi 1,030 miliar dollar AS pada periode tiga bulan yang sama.

Demikian juga Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). Salah satu perusahaan pengolah kedelai, jagung, dan gandum terbesar dunia ini mencatat kenaikan pendapatan bersih 42 persen dan membukukan laba 517 juta dollar AS hanya dalam tiga bulan pertama 2008, dengan laba operasi dari perdagangan biji-bijian meningkat 16 kali lipat dari 21 juta dollar AS menjadi 341 juta dollar AS.

Mosaic Company, salah satu produsen pupuk terbesar, mencatat peningkatan pendapatan lebih dari 12 kali dari 42,2 juta dollar AS menjadi 520,8 juta dollar AS dalam tiga bulan (hingga akhir bulan Februari 2008) di tengah kelangkaan pupuk dunia. Mosaic Company diuntungkan oleh harga beberapa jenis pupuk yang melonjak tiga kali lipat lebih dalam satu tahun terakhir.

Untuk mencegah spekulasi dalam skala masif yang bisa memicu harga, Komisi Perdagangan Berjangka Komoditas AS (Commodity Futures Trading Commission/CFTC) sebenarnya sudah menetapkan batasan nilai kontrak berjangka untuk setiap spekulan individu.

Namun, dari testimoni Direktur Pengawasan Pasar CFTC Don Heitman di depan Kongres, CFTC sudah membuat pengecualian terhadap para bank investasi di Wall Street, setidaknya sejak awal 1990-an, sehingga hedge funds, dana pensiun, dan investor besar lainnya tetap bisa dengan leluasa masuk dengan cara membuat kontrak swap dengan bank-bank Wall Street untuk menghindari aturan tersebut.

Laporan New York Times, 6 Juni, menyebutkan, investor besar juga mengguyurkan dana miliaran dollar AS untuk mengakuisisi properti fisik, mulai dari lahan pertanian, pupuk, mesin pengangkut biji-bijian, hingga armada pengapalan.(sri hartati samhadi)

sri hartati samhadi

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/08/08/01281083/dunia.dikendalikan.penguasa.modal

Dihancurkan oleh Rezim Perdagangan Global

2008-08-10T05:37:00.000-07:00

AP PHOTO/PAT ROQUE

Kompas, Jumat, 8 Agustus 2008 | 03:00 WIB

Banyak pengamat internasional berpandangan, krisis pangan global dewasa ini adalah malapetaka buatan manusia. Krisis terjadi karena sektor pertanian di negara-negara berkembang dihancurkan lewat rezim perdagangan global demi kepentingan segelintir pemain besar dari negara maju. Tujuannya, untuk menciptakan ketergantungan pada impor pangan dari negara maju.

Bank Dunia dalam laporan World Development Report berjudul Agriculture for Development mengungkapkan, sektor pertanian dan pedesaan menderita karena selama 20 tahun terakhir terabaikan dan nyaris tak ada dana mengalir untuk inovasi budidaya dan teknologi (underinvestment).

Alokasi anggaran pemerintah untuk sektor pertanian (termasuk untuk subsidi serta riset dan pengembangan) terus menyusut. Akibatnya, produksi terus stagnan.

Di negara-negara sub-Sahara Afrika, yang pertumbuhan ekonominya nyaris sepenuhnya mengandalkan pada sektor pertanian, rata-rata alokasi anggaran pemerintah untuk sektor pertanian hanya 4 persen dari total anggaran belanja pemerintah. Itu pun, sektor pertanian masih dipajaki tinggi.

Pada saat bersamaan, alokasi bantuan luar negeri untuk pertanian juga terus menyusut, hanya 4 persen dari total Bantuan Pembangunan Resmi (ODA) pada tahun 2004. Padahal, 75 persen penduduk miskin negara berkembang hidup dari sektor ini.

Karena itu, menggenjot investasi secara besar-besaran di sektor pertanian menjadi kata kunci untuk mencegah terulangnya tragedi serupa di negara-negara miskin, sekaligus untuk mencapai target pengurangan angka kelaparan dan kemiskinan hingga separuhnya pada tahun 2015 sebagaimana ditetapkan dalam target Sasaran Pembangunan Milenium (MDG).

Di tengah absennya kepemimpinan global dalam mengatasi krisis pangan sekarang ini, solusi kembali ke pertanian mungkin adalah solusi yang paling riil untuk dilakukan. Ironisnya, ini disampaikan oleh lembaga yang selama ini dituding ikut menyemai krisis pangan global yang kita hadapi sekarang ini.

Apa yang terjadi di Afrika dan sejumlah negara Asia pada kurun 1970-an hingga 1990-an menjadi bukti bahwa lembaga multilateral, seperti Bank Dunia, Dana Moneter Internasional (IMF), dan Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia (WTO) yang selama ini dituding lebih banyak mewakili kepentingan negara-negara maju, telah menjadi bagian kekuatan globalisasi yang justru menghancurkan sistem ketahanan pangan negara-negara berkembang.

Ketika itu, atas nama Program Penyesuaian Struktural (SAP), IMF dan juga Bank Dunia memaksa negara-negara berkembang (termasuk Indonesia) memangkas drastis anggaran pemerintah untuk berbagai sektor, khususnya untuk program pertanian, sebagai prasyarat untuk bisa terus mendapatkan kucuran utang dari lembaga tersebut.

Termasuk di sini, dengan menghapuskan atau memangkas berbagai program subsidi bagi petani dan memaksakan pemrioritasan budidaya tanaman komersial yang bisa diekspor agar bisa mendatangkan devisa (yang kemudian dipakai untuk membayar kembali cicilan dan pokok utang pada kreditor, termasuk Bank Dunia).

Haiti adalah contoh nyata. Di negara ini beras sudah merupakan tanaman pangan tradisional sejak berabad-abad lalu. Hingga 20 tahun lalu, petani negara ini masih mampu memproduksi sekitar 170.000 ton beras per tahun, cukup untuk menutup 95 persen konsumsi domestik.

Kendati tak mendapat subsidi dari pemerintah, akses mereka ke pasar domestik terproteksi oleh adanya tarif impor yang menghambat masuknya beras impor.

Kondisi berubah tahun 1995 ketika kesulitan ekonomi memaksa pemerintah masuk dalam perangkap IMF. Untuk mendapatkan kucuran utang dari IMF, IMF mensyaratkan Haiti memangkas tarif impor beras dari 35 persen menjadi 3 persen. Hasilnya bisa diterka, beras dari Amerika Serikat segera membanjiri pasar lokal pada harga separuh dari tingkat harga beras produksi lokal.

Ribuan petani setempat jadi kehilangan lahan dan mata pencarian karena tak bisa bersaing dengan beras AS. Dewasa ini, 75 persen beras yang dikonsumsi Haiti adalah beras impor dari AS. Beras AS mampu menggusur beras lokal bukan karena rasanya lebih enak atau karena petani AS mampu memproduksi beras lebih efisien, melainkan karena petani AS disubsidi habis-habisan oleh pemerintahnya.

Tahun 2003, subsidi yang dikucurkan Pemerintah AS kepada petaninya mencapai 1,7 miliar dollar AS atau rata-rata 232 dollar AS per hektar padi yang ditanam. Subsidi ini masuk ke kantong segelintir tuan tanah yang menguasai lahan sangat luas atau perusahaan agrobisnis, dan memungkinkan mereka menjual beras pada harga 30-50 persen di bawah biaya produksi riil.

Di 30 negara terkaya di dunia, subsidi menyumbang 30 persen pendapatan petani, dengan total nilai subsidi yang disalurkan mencapai 280 miliar dollar AS tahun lalu.

Di balik kebijakan ini, ada tujuan lain negara-negara maju, yakni mengurangi kompetisi dan mencegah gejolak pasar, seperti anjloknya harga dunia yang bisa mengganggu kepentingan pemain-pemain besar untuk mengeruk keuntungan sebesar-besarnya dari pasar (Alex Lantier: The World Food Crisis and The Capitalist Market).

Politik imperialisme itu mengakibatkan banyak negara miskin di Afrika dan Asia tak lagi swasembada pangan dan menjadi rentan terhadap gejolak harga pangan dunia.

Paksakan GMO

Modus lainnya yang dipakai adalah melalui kedok ”bantuan pangan”. Politik bantuan pangan yang diterapkan AS selama ini, misalnya, ternyata lebih dimaksudkan untuk melayani kepentingan raksasa agrobisnis dan juga perusahaan-perusahaan perkapalan AS, yakni dalam rangka memperluas pasar mereka.

Berbeda dengan negara-negara lain, bantuan pangan AS mensyaratkan bantuan yang diberikan diproduksi, diproses, dan dikapalkan sendiri oleh perusahaan-perusahaan AS. Tentu saja ini sangat mahal, membebani negara penerima dan hanya menguntungkan perusahaan-perusahaan AS sendiri.

Demi kepentingan bisnis segelintir konglomerat bioteknologi, benih hasil rekayasa genetik (genetically modified organism/GMO) juga dipaksakan ke petani negara-negara berkembang dalam konteks ”program bantuan pangan”.

Dalam kasus di Etiopia, benih GMO disalurkan sebagai bantuan bagi petani miskin yang mengalami kekeringan parah. Setelah ditanam dan panen, baru petani menyadari bahwa benih hasil panenannya ternyata tidak boleh ditanam lagi, tanpa membayar royalti kepada produsen benih.

Bukan itu saja, benih tersebut ternyata juga hanya bisa tumbuh jika memakai pupuk, insektisida, dan herbisida yang juga diproduksi oleh produsen yang sama. Di sini, perekonomian petani dijebak masuk dalam perangkap ketergantungan di tangan konglomerat agrobisnis negara maju, seperti Monsanto, Syngenta, Aventis, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Cargill, dan ADM.

Siklus pertanian tradisional yang memungkinkan petani melakukan reproduksi benih di tingkat petani sendiri—yakni dengan menyisihkan benih organik dari hasil panenannya untuk ditanam pada musim tanam berikutnya— menjadi terputus. Akibatnya, tragedi kelaparan terus berulang.

Gagalnya kapitalisme

Kalangan pengamat mencatat semakin terglobalisasi dan terkonsentarsinya produksi pangan global sejak 1970-an. Dewasa ini, perdagangan komoditas pangan pokok didominasi hanya oleh segelintir pemain besar.

Sekitar 80 persen pasar ekspor gandum dikuasai hanya oleh enam pemain. Hal serupa terjadi pada 85 persen pasar ekspor beras. Untuk jagung, 70 persen pasar ekspor bahkan hanya dikendalikan oleh tiga pemain. Ini membuat nasib negara-negara termiskin yang harus mengimpor pangan untuk bisa bertahan hidup menjadi sepenuhnya ada di tangan segelintir korporasi.

Food & Water Watch mencatat, lahan pertanian tanaman pangan di Afrika sejak WTO efektif terbentuk terus menyusut. Sebaliknya, luasan lahan untuk tanaman komersial, seperti kopi, kakao, tebu, kapas, tembakau, dan teh, terus meningkat pesat.

Presiden Venezuela menggambarkan krisis pangan dewasa ini sebagai bukti nyata kegagalan model kapitalisme global. Mantan Presiden Kuba Fidel Castro Ruiz bahkan menyebut program biofuel yang diprakarsai AS dan Uni Eropa sebagai genosida.

Mantan analis pemerintahan federal AS, Richard Cook, dalam tulisan Crisis in Food Prices Threatens Worldwide Starvation: Is It Genocide sependapat dengan Bank Dunia, kini saatnya kembali ke sawah. Dalam kaitan ini, ia menekankan pentingnya dukungan kebijakan penuh dari pemerintah, mulai dari kredit lunak, jaminan harga, pelayanan yang terjangkau, kebijakan pajak yang mendukung dan hingga yang ekstrem: gerakan nasional untuk mengonsumsi produksi dalam negeri.

”Produksi pangan tidak boleh lagi diserahkan ke tangan perusahaan agrobisnis dan kapitalisme finansial internasional,” ujarnya. (sri hartati samhadi)

sri hartati samhadi

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/08/08/01295845/dihancurkan.oleh.rezim.perdagangan.global

Dunia Bisa Dibuat Lebih Baik

2008-08-07T05:27:00.000-07:00

Kompas, Kamis, 7 Agustus 2008

New York, Selasa - Kenaikan harga pangan dan energi, perubahan iklim, serta meningkatnya migrasi dan kejahatan internasional akan memicu ketidakadilan dan kekerasan di dunia pada dekade mendatang. Demikian isi laporan berjudul ”2008 State of Future Report” yang dibuat para analis di lembaga Millennium Project.

Laporan itu dimotori World Federation of UN Associations, badan-badan Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa yang memiliki perwakilan di lebih dari 100 negara. Laporan itu dipublikasikan di Markas PBB di New York, Amerika Serikat, Selasa (5/8).

Laporan itu mengingatkan para pemimpin dunia bahwa masih ada instrumen yang bisa membuat ancaman itu tak terwujud. Instrumen yang dimaksud adalah kemajuan sains dan teknologi, perbaikan pendidikan, ekonomi, manajemen, dan sistem, serta perbaikan etika atau perilaku di berbagai bidang. ”Hal ini, jika terwujud, akan membuat dunia lebih baik dibandingkan dengan keadaan sekarang ini,” demikian isi laporan tersebut.

Laporan itu mengemukakan ada 15 tantangan global yang mengancam dunia pada masa datang. Beberapa di antaranya adalah kelangkaan persediaan air, krisis energi, hingga peningkatan kejahatan terorganisasi dan etika global makin kacau. Hal itu memerlukan perhatian penuh untuk diatasi secara dini.

Laporan tersebut juga menyatakan, separuh dunia ini sangat rentan ketidakstabilan sosial dan kekerasan. Hal ini antara lain adalah dampak negatif dari kenaikan harga pangan dan energi, jatuhnya sejumlah pemerintahan akibat gagalnya negara-negara, serta kelangkaan air dan faktor lainnya.

Laporan itu mengutip Pusat Analisis Angkatan Laut AS yang mengidentifikasi 46 negara berpenduduk 2,7 miliar jiwa rawan akan konflik bersenjata. Sebanyak 56 negara berpenduduk 1,2 miliar jiwa menghadapi risiko ketidakstabilan politik.

Hingga pertengahan tahun 2008, demikian laporan tersebut, sudah terjadi 14 peperangan yang mengakibatkan lebih dari 1.000 orang tewas. Peperangan itu terjadi di Afrika (5), Asia (4), Amerika (2), Timur Tengah (1), dan satu lagi didefinisikan sebagai gerakan antiekstremis global.

Krisis pangan

Laporan itu juga mengingatkan kembali perkiraan Organisasi Pangan dan Pertanian (FAO), ada 37 negara yang menghadapi krisis pangan. Krisis pangan tersebut disebabkan oleh berbagai faktor, seperti permintaan yang terus meningkat pesat dari negara-negara berkembang, harga minyak yang semakin tinggi, hingga mahalnya pupuk dan spekulasi di pasar komoditas.

”Harga bahan pangan pokok akan naik 50 persen dari sekarang pada 2013 dan menjadi dua kali lipat di seantero dunia dalam 30 tahun mendatang. Harga biji-bijian sebagai contoh, termasuk gandum dan beras, telah naik 129 persen sejak 2006,” demikian peringatan laporan itu.

Ditambahkan, ada potensi untuk terjadinya sekitar tiga miliar jiwa warga dunia yang berpendapatan 2 dollar AS atau kurang dari itu per hari. Jika ini terjadi, konflik sosial global dalam jangka panjang tampaknya tidak dapat dihindari.

Namun, berita positifnya adalah, hal ini dapat dihindari jika ada kebijakan pangan yang serius dan berguna. ”Penemuan ilmiah tentang pangan akan membawa kecerahan baru,” demikian tertulis dalam laporan itu.

Permintaan pangan yang lebih banyak juga memerlukan pasokan air, tanah, dan pupuk. Para penulis laporan merekomendasikan cara pertanian baru, seperti sistem pengairan yang lebih baik, manajemen irigasi, dan rekayasa genetika untuk menghasilkan bulir yang lebih banyak.

Senada dengan peringatan itu, dalam sebuah seminar di Bandung, Rabu (6/8), Menteri Luar Negeri Hassan Wirajuda mengatakan RI akan mendesak PBB untuk menjadikan isu ketahanan pangan dalam agenda Sidang Umum PBB pada September 2008.

Rencana itu didukung Mesir dan Cile. Isu pangan, kata Hassan, dalam lima bulan terakhir menjadi kekhawatiran sejumlah negara berkembang dan miskin di dunia. Naiknya harga bahan bakar diiringi naiknya harga pangan membuat sejumlah negara mengalami krisis pangan dan politik. ”Isu pangan memicu demonstrasi di Manila, Banglades, dan bahkan menjatuhkan pemimpin di Haiti,” tutur Hassan.

Laporan PBB itu juga menyebutkan salah satu tantangan utama yang dihadapi umat manusia ke depan adalah ketersediaan air. Laporan itu mengatakan sekarang saja sudah ada 700 juta jiwa yang kekurangan air, atau hanya mendapatkan air kurang dari 1.000 kubik meter per orang per tahun. Angka ini dapat bertambah menjadi tiga miliar orang pada tahun 2020 karena perubahan iklim.

Perubahan iklim

Laporan itu juga memperingatkan Afrika akan mengalami pukulan paling berat walaupun benua itu juga berkontribusi pada masalah iklim. Bagian selatan Afrika diperkirakan akan mengalami penurunan produksi jagung hingga 30 persen pada 2030.

Lembaga itu menyerukan agar dibentuk strategi global AS-China untuk membahas masalah perubahan iklim secara serius. Strategi itu akan mampu mendorong berbagai penemuan dan tindakan yang mengatasi dampak buruk perubahan iklim.

Hal ini, misalnya, bisa diwujudkan dengan menciptakan kendaraan elektrik, pertanian dengan air asin, pengurangan emisi karbon, satelit tenaga surya, protein hewani dari bahan nonhewan, dan lainnya.

Persoalan energi akan memusingkan kepala. Masalahnya, permintaan global terhadap energi akan bertambah menjadi dua kali lipat dalam jangka 20 tahun. Di sisi lain sumber-sumber energi utama semakin sedikit. Laporan itu merekomendasikan investasi besar-besaran untuk menghasilkan energi tenaga angin, panas bumi, matahari, biofuel berbasis air asin. (AFP/JOE)

joe

Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://entertainment.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/08/07/02032225/dunia.bisa.dibuat.lebih.baik

Press Release Serikat Petani Indonesia

2008-08-02T18:23:00.001-07:00

Jakarta, 30 Juli 2008--PERUNDINGAN Agenda Doha WTO kolaps kemarin (29/7), di
Jenewa, Swiss. Perundingan yang dimulai dari tahun 2001 ini sudah sejak lama
jatuh-bangun: Mulai tahun 2003, 2005, hingga tahun 2006. Penyebabnya satu:
bahwa perdagangan bebas di tiga sektor (pertanian, industri dan jasa) adalah
masalah, bukan solusi dari problem rakyat.

Di dalam sektor pertanian, hampir tidak ada kesamaan persepsi di antara
negara-negara miskin dan berkembang dengan negara maju. Di tingkatan riil,
hasil perundingan WTO sejak tahun 1995 telah banyak merugikan petani kecil
di kedua belah pihak. Agenda Doha juga secara umum hanya memaksa
negara-negara untuk membuka pasarnya, sementara proteksi diminimalisasi. Di
sisi lain, masih terjadi perdebatan besar mengenai proteksi luar biasa yang
dipraktekkan di Amerika Serikat (AS) dan Uni Eropa (UE). Hal demikian juga
berlaku pada sektor industri dan jasa.

Sementara kita melihat, liberalisasi sektor pertanian tidak akan memecahkan
krisis pangan saat ini. Yang diinginkan petani adalah proteksi, sehingga ada
kepastian dan insentif dari pasar domestik. Petani bukan anti-perdagangan,
namun perdagangan haruslah adil. Tidak seperti perdagangan bebas ala WTO,
yang hanya menguntungkan segelintir tengkulak, pedagang dan perusahaan
transnasional.

Dalam proposal yang lebih kompromistis di dalam WTO, Indonesia mengusulkan
Special Product dan Special Safeguard Mechanism (SP/SSM) yang diharapkan
melindungi petani. Petani menilai hal tersebut harus dilakukan semaksimal
mungkin, karena perlindungan petani bukanlah diatur oleh pasar. Perlindungan
petani adalah kewajiban negara (*state obligation*), lagipula pangan dan
petani bukanlah sekadar dinilai komoditas dan tenaga kerja belaka.

Jika melihat proyeksi keuntungan dari Agenda Doha, negara miskin dan
berkembang hanya akan memperoleh 'potongan kue' sebanyak US$ 16 milyar. Jika
dibagi ke seluruh rakyat di negara berkembang, tak sampai satu sen
keuntungan mampir ke tangan rakyat per harinya. Di lain pihak, kerugian
pendapatan negara dari pemotongan tarif, dan berjuta orang dalam sektor
pertanian dan industri yang kehilangan pekerjaan sangatlah mengerikan.

Agenda Doha sangatlah buruk, dan sudah pula gagal berulang kali. Prosesnya
pun tak demokratis, dengan membiarkan hanya segelintir negara G-7 yang
mengambil keputusan. Sudah saatnya Indonesia menguatkan dirinya dalam forum
regional dan multilateral, dan adalah mutlak menolak Agenda Doha, serta WTO
pada umumnya. Dalam 7 tahun, Agenda Doha sudah kolaps dan dalam 13 tahun,
penderitaan rakyat atas liberalisasi WTO sudah sangat mengerikan. Sudah
saatnya Indonesia dan negara-negara lain melupakan WTO. Sudah saatnya pula
melihat ke depan, menuju sebuah sistem perdagangan multilateral yang adil.
Sistem yang bisa melindungi petani, serta rakyat pada umumnya; dan yang bisa
beraksi nyata mengatasi krisis pangan, energi, iklim dan finansial.*****

*Kontak: Henry Saragih, Ketua umum SPI (0816 31 4444 1, email:
hsaragih@spi.or.id)*

"WTO Kills Farmers": India Free Market Reforms Trigger Farmers' Suicides

2008-07-31T17:57:00.001-07:00

by Jessica Long
Global Research, August 12, 2007

Many of us remember the crucial failure of the WTO's Fifth Ministerial Conference in Cancun, Mexico in 2003. It was on this day that Lee Kyung Hae, leader of the Korean Federation of Advanced Farmers, discovered that his loudest voice was in death.

Wearing a sandwich board that read, "The WTO kills farmers!"- Lee took a knife and stabbed himself in the chest. His death was ignored by the WTO and the mainstream media. Given the lack of attention, many argue that his violent end was in vain. Sadly, his dishonored death is one of thousands being ignored by corporate mainstream media.

In 2003, 17,107 farmers committed suicide. In the last few years, the number of documented suicides in India's rural areas has skyrocketed. These suicides have become so commonplace that they are mystifying a nation and polarizing the debate over biotechnology.

On the surface, the massive numbers of farmer suicides lack the social unity and revolutionary opposition other revolutions employ. In fact, the local Indian government refuses to address the correlation between agrarian suicides and economic exploitation, making it difficult for the international public to apply real social forces to these farmers’ actions.

However, research shows the massive numbers of farmer suicides are linked not only with economic disparity, but with corporate exploitation by multinational agribusinesses.

Whether addressed as "agrarian martyrs" or merely desperate peasantry, exploited Indian farmers, like Lee Kyung Hae, have found that their loudest voice is in death.

In a religiously and ethnically segmented nation, their actions have founded a cultural unity that confronts the evils of globalization. Thus, the insanely high volume of farmer suicides serves as a shockingly unique medium of proletarian outcry.

The Republic of India is one of the top twelve nations in the world in terms of biodiversity. Featuring nearly 8% of all recorded species on Earth, this subcontinent is home to 47,000 plant species and 81,000 animal species. Simultaneously, India is home to the largest network of indigenous farmers in the world. Yet biotechnology has led to extreme environmental degradation in the region, threatening to replace its diverse ecology with corporate hybrid monoculture. The original Green Revolution was supposed to save 58 million Indian hectares. Today, 120 million of the 142 million cultivable hectares is degraded- over twice the magnitude that the Green Revolution attempted to save! In the Indian state of Punjab, 84 of the 138 developmental blocks are recorded as having 98% ground water exploitation. The critical limit is 80%. The result has had devastating impacts on the agricultural community, leaving exploited farmers with little choice of action. In
the past six years, more than three thousand farmers have committed suicide in Andrha Pradesh, that is six to ten farmers everyday! When did this start? Why is this occurring?

And why have such little media attention been given to this crisis?

There are three potential causes for the onset of these self-inflicted massacres:

1) exploitation by multinational agribusinesses

2) severe economic disparity and

3) a means of resistance by exposing the abuse of the agrarian sphere.

In 1998, around the inception of mass farmer suicides, the World Bank imposed regulations that opened up India’s seed market to corporate multinationals like Monsanto. Non-renewable GM crops now replaced a self-sustainable farming system that had been perfected over thousands of years.

While corporate agribusinesses impose their hybrid monoculture on peasant farmers, they refuse to consider the biodiversity that is desired to maintain traditional practices.

For example, 75% of cultivable Indian land exists in dry zones. Non GM rice utilizes 3,000 liters of water in order to produce one kilo, while non-renewable hybrid rice requires 5,000 liters per kilo! Cotton, largely considered the “pesticide treadmill,” makes India the third largest cotton grower in the world, accounting for 1/3 of its export earnings.

Continuous GM cotton crop failures resulted in the state of Andrha Pradesh, the seed capital of India, prohibiting the sales of Bt cotton varieties by Monsanto. This perpetual poverty is sustained by the bourgeois pursuit of maximizing production at the lowest possible expense!!!!!

Last year the Indian government forced Monsanto to cut the royalties they receive from the patented seeds in India- but Monsanto has appealed to the Indian Supreme Court. The economic disparity of Indian farmers only increases as they try to keep up with the lowest import prices. It is estimated that they are losing $26 billion annually.

In fact, non Indian farmers receive six times the amount of GDP that Indian farmers get, requiring an exorbitant amount of loans to be taken out. While 90% of farm loans come from money lenders, they are charged anywhere from 36-50% interest, placing them in a cyclical mode of poverty. Surely poverty alone cannot be responsible for such massive amounts of bloodshed! After all, poverty has always existed, so what is it about current conditions that have led to all this bloodshed? The fact is that mass suicides have transformed these farmers into agrarian martyrs for peasants everywhere. Their deaths are inspiring significant social forces both by the government and among its citizens. In response to the crisis, the government has implemented compensation laws in which the victim’s family receives free electricity and $3,500. In response to economic disparity, the Indian government imposed a one year suspension for all agriculture loans while waiving
interest.

However, monetary compensation laws only provide more economic incentive for suicide, thus the citizens of India are forced to devise alternative solutions to the problem. Arguably, the mass suicides can be seen as a revolutionary tactic... Dr. R. Raghuarami, an Indian psychologist, argues that many of the farmers are takingtheir lives with direct intent of addressing attention to the agrarian struggle. He argues that “suicide by one farmer is inviting others to do the same." The All Indian

Kisan Sabha (AIKS), or peasants front of the Communist Party in India view this agrarian crisis as a direct result of proletarian exploitation. S. Ramachandran Pillai, AIKS president, “called for a united movement of the peasantry to fight the neo-liberal imperialist offensive looming large all over the country." AIKS has formed allies with other social groups like the Agricultural Workers Union, Adivasi Kshema Samithi, Center for Indian Trade Unions and the Democratic Youth Federation of India to combat neoliberalism and to voice demands for proletariat justice.

The nation is calling upon cultural unification to combat the imperialist offensive and the corrupt bourgeois government. The debate on the true reasons for the uproar of suicides and the effects of GM crops remains heated... but, unfortunately, it is very likely that the rest of the world would not have been aware of this current crisis if it were not for these intense disputes. With each passing day, an estimated seven more farmers die.... the question remains, are you listening?

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6522