现在我们再来听一遍克雷宁教授这段谈话的原文。（英文略）

二十世纪末的亚洲经济危机发生后，很对经济学家认为短期资本的流动效应与长期投资以及商品服务贸易的效应有很大不同。香港汇丰银行高级经济师约翰爱德华兹对此作了解释。他说：

There's an intrinsic flaw in the system. There's no constraint at all on short-term lending, international lending, but there's no international lender of the last resort facility which can assure this debt can be redeemed.

Of course it's being spent on projects which have a life longer than the term of the debt. I mean, that's a rather complicated way of saying that there's a mismatch between the term of the lending and the investment period for which it's being used, as there is in the case of domestic banks - if you have a cheque account at a bank, the bank is in fact using that to lend money on projects which might have a life of two or three, or longer years, but you can withdraw the money tomorrow. And the way in which this is reconciled for a bank is ultimately, say the Reserve Bank of Australia can provide liquidity, has a lender of the last resort role.

But there's no such role internationally, and that means that lenders have an incentive to stampede, to have a run on a country. And at the moment we don't have a way of dealing with that.

下面我们把约翰爱德华兹的这段谈话和中文翻译分段听一遍：（英文略）

这个体系有一个固有的缺陷：对国际短期借贷没有任何的约束限制，同时也没有任何国际“最后贷款人”机制来确保借款能够获得偿还。

这些借款当然都是用于项目期限长于借款期限的项目。我是说，用一种比较复杂的说法来解释，那就是贷款期限与使用贷款的投资期限不相配。正如在国内银行发生的情况一样。如果你在一家银行有一个支票帐户，银行实际上把你的钱借贷出去用于可能会持续两到三年或更长时间的项目，而你可以在明天就取出存款。对银行来说这种情况最终可通过类似澳大利亚储备银行这样的“最后贷款人”提供流动资金来调节。

但国际上却没有这样的最后贷款人。因此债权人就有了一窝蜂把借款从一个国家转移出去的动机。现在我们对此还无能为力。

最后我们把爱德华兹这段谈话的原文再听一遍。