>> And a note: it seems to me that a central part of a progressive "no bailout"
>> policy would be pointing to the record of how such bailouts "structurally
>> adjust" millions outside the US into ever greater instability, vulnerabilty
>> and lower wages. In fact, I would suggest that working out a progressive
>> bailout policy would have to be a multinational activity.
>
>Right. The proponents of bail-out have to show
>that bailing out solves the problem and that
>failure to bail out makes the problem much worse.
> Neither is obvious to me.
Or to put it slightly differently, but in the same vein, while pciking up
your previous thread on protecting small savers: What kind of bailout, for
whom, with what costs and benefits accruing to whom?
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.
Tom
Tom Kruse / Casilla 5869 / Cochabamba, Bolivia
Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
