Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Muthusamy SELVARAJU who wrote (22417)	8/9/2002 3:10:33 PM
From: Joe S Pack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

think the circular route is going to work out something like this: a) the IMF puts up whatever funds are eventually deployed to Brazil b) it turns to its members, including the US for their respective share of contributions. In the old days, they could also issue supranational money of their own, by way of SDRs, I'm not sure if they still can, if so of course, everyone gets away scot-free, effectively the 'piper' doesn't have to be paid. c) as for the US contributions which need to be funded, the Treasury immediately issues more bonds during its weekly auctions, and the happy Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean and Arab governments, pension funds, private investors and for good measure, hedge funds everywhere subscribe for them. It seems, this cycle has been either going on for a long time, or will go on forever from here on, since the bailout will not stop with Brazil....can someone clarify why this thing could be a 'freebie' for the US of A. In this circle of capitalism-free market-open trade-democracy game, who is the ultimate bag holder? The good old reliable and stupid tax paying J6P of USA? So in effect, these top institutional crooks (Citi and JPMorgan and others), gamed the US government, via the IMF route, and hence the ultimate bag holder J6P's of USA to pay for their exposures in Brazil? I am trying to reason this out as to why their stocks got boosted since this announcement. Of course the main show is "we cannot let this bankruptcy bankrupting yet another bankrupt idea/country" by our beloved and belowed politicians.

To: Muthusamy SELVARAJU who wrote (22417)	8/9/2002 10:10:01 PM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

The Lost Continent By PAUL KRUGMAN On Wednesday the Bush administration, which says that it is for free trade and against bailouts, once again put its money where its mouth isn't. Less than two weeks ago Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill created a diplomatic incident and sent Brazil's currency into free fall with his remark about assistance ending up in "Swiss bank accounts." Now the International Monetary Fund, with Mr. O'Neill's blessing, has agreed to lend Brazil an unprecedented $30 billion. I guess it's good news that our leadership finally woke up to two uncomfortable facts: A major threat to U.S. interests is developing in this hemisphere, and doing the opposite of what Bill Clinton did isn't always a wise policy. Indeed, if Brazil hadn't gotten a loan the South American financial crisis, already comparable to the one that struck Asia in 1997, might quickly have turned into something much bigger. And yet I have a bad feeling about this. Let me make the case for the I.M.F. loan, then explain my misgivings. The good news is that Brazil's current leadership is highly responsible. In the past, I.M.F. loans went to governments that didn't collect taxes (Russia) or were committed to an unsustainable exchange rate (Argentina). By comparison, Brazil is a model of upright behavior. So why is there a crisis? With an election due in October, President Fernando Henrique Cardoso's chosen successor is running far behind two left-of-center candidates. Investors are nervous, and the result has been one of those downward spirals all too familiar from the history of currency crises. Fears that the government will default on its debt have caused the currency to plunge and interest rates to soar; since most of the debt is indexed either to the dollar or to short-term interest rates, this makes default seem even more likely. Mr. O'Neill's remark was unforgivable because it reinforced this death spiral; the I.M.F. loan is an attempt to turn that spiral around. The end result of Mr. O'Neill's flub was probably to get Brazil an extra $10 billion. So why am I feeling queasy? One reason is that there is some question about who, exactly, is being bailed out. Paul Erdman writes on cbsmarketwatch.com — in a column praising the administration! — that "The fact that the Brazilian bailout also gave a big boost to Citigroup and FleetBoston, which combined had close to $20 billion at risk in Brazil, will hardly go unnoticed when it comes time to raise campaign funds among the Wall Street elite." More important, if you look beyond the question of short-term financial stabilization you have to wonder where all this is supposed to be leading. Asian economies were doing very well before their crisis, and you could think of bailouts as a way to get them back on track. But there is a reason the left is having a resurgence in Brazil and elsewhere in the region: We promised them a rose garden, but even before this latest crisis too many people got nothing but thorns. A decade ago Washington confidently assured Latin American nations that if they opened themselves to foreign goods and capital and privatized their state enterprises they would experience a great surge of economic growth. But it hasn't happened. Argentina is a catastrophe. Both Mexico and Brazil were, a few months ago, regarded as success stories, but in both countries per capita income today is only slightly higher than it was in 1980. And because inequality has increased sharply, most people are probably worse off than they were 20 years ago. Is it any wonder that the public is weary of yet more calls for austerity and market discipline? Why hasn't reform worked as promised? That's a difficult and disturbing question. I, too, bought into much though not all of the Washington consensus; but now it's time, as Berkeley's Brad DeLong puts it, to mark my beliefs to market. And my confidence that we've been giving good advice is way down. One has to sympathize with Latin political leaders who want to temper enthusiasm for free markets with more efforts to protect workers and the poor. What that suggests to me is that the United States should be very cautious about what it expects for its money. Pulling Brazil back from the brink doesn't mean that we are once again in a position to demand that Latin Americans do things our way. The truth is that we've lost a lot of credibility with our southern neighbors. If we overplay our hand, we'll lose whatever is left.