Nestor,
>My only comment would be that in
>the case of the USA, a devaluation would not of necessity mean a
>"structural adjustment". The obvious aim is to boost US exports and
>sweep away exports ...
Isn't that the whole point about structural adjustment? Killing doemstic demand
and creating competitive export sectors, I mean.
OK, this is not the only possible consequence to devaluation but given the
current mood of the US ruling class it wouldn't be surprising, isn't it?
>"By definition in balance"? What do you mean? Argentinian balance of
>paymets has been in deficit, consistently, for year after year since
>the neoliberals took helm. If you consider payments DUE as a part of
>the balance, that is another story, but then you are mixing potatoes
>with oranges, don't you think so? (yes, I know, you don't).
Well, there's the current account and the capital account. Both are supposed
to balance each other because this is the way things are accounted. At least
this is how I have understood it. So yes payments due are included I guess
(the capital account). So it indeed seems that one of us is mixing potatoes with
oranges. One more stupid vocabulary problem. But as long as no one thinks
of the balance of payments as the payments due part only, we can understand
each other.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
