At 01:15 PM 12/28/97 -0400, Tom Kruse wrote:
>One of my ocncerns is the way bailouts are really cover for "lockins" into
>free trade regimes, de-regulation, etc. So, concretely, what would a
>bailout for S. Korea look like that:
>
>- protects the most vulnerable small savers and small businesses
>- lets the big wasters take a fall
>- does not forclose on the autonomy necessary to determine nationally when
>and if to exercise some state control over utilities, pensions, etc.
>- and stateside, how to see that, in fact, it does not become a mechanism
>for supporting continued exports to the detriment of US workers.
>
>Kind of tough.
Like Doug, I have trouble believing we'd actually let the big wasters take
a fall; how about just a bump on the noggin?
The only realistic way I can see of dealing with the big wasters is to put
the issue of future bailouts on the table. Right now, the IMF is demanding
"deregulation" without saying that they'll refuse to bail out the Big Boys
when they get into trouble again--a sure-fire recipie for future disasters.
What we need is a global, progressive version of what Glass-Steagal tried
to accomplish: certain behavior we'll bail out, certain behavior we won't.
And while we're rewriting the accounting standards of the countries that
blew up, why not change them so that risky behavior that we're not going to
bail out is on the balance sheet in such a way that makes its riskiness
very, very clear.
Anders Schneiderman
