> Peter Kilander:
> >I'm not absolutely confident; I was just relaying what my crystal ball was
> >saying. I wouldn't bet money one way or the other. In the article I was
> >talking about, the writer said that in the aftermath of the crash of 1987,
> >the Fed flooded the markets with money, thereby avoiding depression.
>
> One of the things that I find so extremely interesting about how this
> situation is being discussed in the bourgeois press is that "globalization"
> has disappeared as a descriptive term. All the pundits are trying to make
> the case that the crises are localized. What was only a few years ago the
> buzz-word on everybody's lips has now become extinct. My guess is that
> since bourgeois economics is basically "false science" or ideology, it
> becomes necessary to adjust one's rationalizations to meet current
> situations.
>
Louis is right, but everyone here knows that; they just don't dare admit it (I'm not as polite as Lou).
The short answer to Kilander's ideas about flooding markets with dosh is that that is what the US, Japanese and EU have been doing most of 1998. The IMF spent $18bn in Russia and the bailout went wrong in 3 weeks. The longer answer would have to start with the world-system, not end with it. When the crash of 1987 happened I was in Moscow and there were big street parties to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the October Revolution (yes, really) amid considerable schadenfreude about western woes. It was a great surprise to me and most people (putting it mildly) when it turned out to be none other than the Soviet Union which would foot the bill for the vampire's next unexpected renaissance. But that's what happened: because the world system is a single spatio-technical unity. People like Brad deLong are capable of writing about that the whole time without ever actually noticing the fact. Check out Nouriel Roubini's Asia Crisis Page and see what I mean. The collective floundering on this list looks like a Palladian college of sweet reason by comparison.
Mark