On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Doyle Saylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings Economists, > On Sep 28, 2008, at 6:22 AM, Doug Henwood wrote: > >> So how does this apply to the Scandinavian banking crises of the early >> 1990s? Did they displace it onto the U.S. 15 years later? Or Greenland and >> we all missed it? > > Doyle; > Or Argentina, or Turkey, or Russia, on and on. This indicates a global > aspect of the crisis rather than a focus on just U.S. systemic problems. > The obvious answer is that until it reaches the U.S. it is regionalized > problems ignored so long as it is contained.
I agree. Doug, if you read Patrick's post, he already dealt with your question -- explaining that not all crisis episodes have been so displaced. "To be sure, some of the problems faced by capitalism have not been simply stalled and shifted around. Some vicious hits - asset devaluations - have occurred in different sites over the past 30 years." However, as Doyle points out, they have been contained regionally. Think of Japan, even. The USA is not Japan, though, and it is not Sweden. The USA is home of the Dollar (last time I looked) and so it's not clear what containing this crisis regionally could possibly mean. Reading the New York Times and the Globe and Mail over the last week -- not Marxist critics -- the theme keeps being repeated that "this time its different" and that the moral hazard of a systemic bailout can no longer be treated as a unanticipated side effect. Moral hazard was a "feature not a bug" of previous, limited bailouts. The coming bailout, though, is forced to confront moral hazard, at least seemingly. -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
