I like Tom's #1235. I'm wondering myself whether the U.S.-dominated IMF is really a good thing to have in SEA at this moment, as it may indeed be perceived as economic imperialism by the West.
I have no idea what the man in the streets in K.L and elsewhere about it thinks these days. If he has profited from the before-crash situation, maybe he should not complain too loudly now?
OTOH, I'm also thinking what the consequences of a moratorium by SEA countries were:
Obviously, Western banks like CCI et al. sure have to take the full hit and write these loans down, taking huge charges in the next few years. But my guess is they have emerged strong enough the last couple of years to get out alive, and if not, better that they dissapear anyway for they were even more stupid than just ordinarily stupid.
So the question really is IMO: Were the SEA countries better off if they declared a moratrorium now? What would immediately happen? Would it help their industries and cos. to get back on track faster, bailing out the economies more quickly? Social reforms being implemented more quickly? The concentration of capital in rather few hands (Suharto i.e.) that may then be the main local "lender of last resort", will they provide bridge fiancings and stuff and at the same time give up power? I doubt it.
I'm not against a moratorium per se. But what would be the immediate consequences in the region?
Folks, you guessed it. I don't see clearly. Any comments appreciated.
Thomas |
