Essay east asian crisis

The East Asian crisis does not only show the danger of rapidly liberalizing capital markets but that its results may be severely damaging for the economy.

The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 has been studied by several economists, and different causes have been identified, both primary and secondary, which intensified the overall impact of the crisis. In my view, the Global Financial Crisis resulted due to a culmination of several policies that interplayed with each other, and significantly influenced all sectors of the economy, from consumers to the government. In this essay, I will be addressing the main underlying causes of the crisis, how they originated, the extent of their impact, and how they compare with other financial crises. I will conclude with an analysis of policies that have been undertaken, and initiatives which should be implemented to prevent future crises.

Governments had to come up with some solutions in order to further avert the decline of their country 's economy as the financial crises of the United States overflowed into the global financial and world economy. (Marshall, n.d).This paper discusses the history of the financial crisis - its causes, impacts, and the responses of governments and other institutions.

The Asian Financial Crisis, that began in the middle of 1997, was a surprise to many. It all started when Thailand had a financial crisis which ended up spreading to its neighboring Southeast Asian countries. This mass spread was largely due to the intense devaluation of currencies in Asia . The crisis caused mass capital outflows and investor flight because investors lost confidence in the financial systems in many of those countries. Although it started out being contained in Thailand, it spread to other East Asian countries and ended up impacting Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, Hong Kong, and China. Consequently, the lack of investor confidence caused the international stock markets suffered from this crisis, which also impacted other countries that reside outside of the Asian continent.

In 1997, there occurred certain shifts in expectations from the market. The regional contagion and confidence led to the East Asian financial turmoil. In 1990s, it had been reported that the microeconomic and macroeconomic businesses were not performing as expected. The local and international investors had not held enough grips into the looming financial challenges to be expected by the financial fragments. These investors panicked and participated in fraudulent and faulty approaches and policies of operation in the market through the influence of the International Monetary Fund together with the global financial body. The financial policies, which were laid by the small businesses within the region, had failed to bring enough financial performance in the local and international market. For instance, reports claim that these businesses were not large enough to hold immense support to the structure of the economy in the region. With time, the stability of the financial structure was brought to question. This was later contributed by the influences obtained from the international financial bodies and the International Monetary Fund committee (Corsetti, Pesenti, & Roubini, 1999, p.305-6).

Shortly after the financial crisis in 2008, many economists had to rethink their approach to the market. Everyone knew we had a panic because the stock market and the housing market collapsed. American economy was reaching to the bottom. Many people considered it as a second worst recession after the great the Great Depression. But what was the cause? Who were responsible for the crisis? What can we learn from this turmoil? In the recent New York Times Sunday magazine article, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman offered his explanation for the causes and insight toward fixing the economy.

The late half of 1997 and the early parts of 1998 presented the world with one of the world’s most famous financial crises. This financial crisis proved to be detrimental mainly to the south-eastern Asian area, including South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and Indonesia. The aforementioned south-eastern states recorded astounding economic growth in the preceding decade. The downfall of the economy caused a domino effect in the local markets and currency markets of each country. The nations’ leaders, as a result, had to request assistance from the IMF. Politics were important in creating the financial boom, but they were also guilty of the subsequent consequences.

The financial crisis, which began in late 2007 in US, went on to affect Europe and Asian counties. The economists were of the opinion that it would not affect the developing nations like China and India. Moreover as per the economists, these countries have already adopted reforms, which would make them withstand such crisis, and hence would be able to sail through it. But that was not the case. We would be comparing the economic policies of these countries’. Both the countries’ have high economic growth rate since last decade or so and are rapidly raising their footprint in global scenario.

case of simple geometry, in which A interacts with B: but in a more complex

Commonly referred to as the “Asian Contagion” the East Asian financial crisis of 1997 marked a time in which multiple Asian countries fell into a recession as a result of financialization. Although the East Asian financial crisis affected over ten countries, Thailand’s economy is will first be primarily analyzed prior to the crash because it was the first economy to fall and essentially started the crisis. In retrospect, the complexity of the financial crisis has caused much debate on what actually started the crisis in the first place. In order to address the various positions of the East Asian financial crisis, the works of Charles Kindleberger, Krippner, and Dani Rodrik are analyzed and compared. While the crisis has many components that ultimately suggest that conjoined multiple factors are potentially to blame, these authors suggest that specific instances are the main culprit. In essence, Kindleberger states that investor and lender speculation deemed the crisis inevitable, Krippner condemns government policies, while Rodrik suggests that hyper-globalization is to blame.

The paper also explains how the financial crisis of a single country can have a multiple effects in other country that can be turned into a global crisis. Some pracrical examples are given here to have a better understanding of the aftermath situation of a financial crisis.

In 1997, the Asian Financial Crisis spread rapidly all over the Asia and affected almost all the economies in the world. Prior to the Asian Financial Crisis, the Asian countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, South Korea, Indonesia, Hong Kong and Singapore experienced a remarkable growth in the economy that was considered the highest in the world. These Asian economies increased by a notable proportion of 6 to 10 percent annually in the GDP. However, what had been regarded as an Asian miracle seemed to crumple down rapidly 1997 when these Asian countries were faced with a severe financial crisis in their local stock and currency

Governments face all kinds of crises every day, the approaches may be different but the goal is always the same—maintain stability. While, wars and crimes against humanity tend to take a toll on the population, infrastructure and terrain quite literally, financial crises can psychologically cripple a country. There’s something about a financial crisis that conjures a level of panic that could rival the outbreak of a deadly disease. Maybe this is caused by a lack of visible end, as it seems the light at the end of the tunnel is only made clear at the end of the crisis. Even with examples from history to refer to, each financial crisis seems to take on a version all its own like a new strain of a deadly virus. The government tries to

2. Too many controls over the prices of securities under the erstwhile controller of capital issues

Over the past thirty years since its establishment in August 1967, the ASEAN has been one of the fastest growing economies in the world with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 6.6 per cent. Growth enormously peaked in 1994-1995 with Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand enjoying growth rates in the range of 8-10 per cent. The region benefited from macroeconomic stability with countries ran budgetary surpluses up to the middle of 1997. The engine growth was said to be the exports, which grew more than fifty-fold from US$6.3 billion in 1970 to US$340 billion in 1996 (Setboonsarng, 1998). Much of the growth in the region could be attributed to the ASEAN leaders’ decision to launch the region on the road to real