评论
打印
Something similar happened again in 1997 but by then the banks had learned to securitize their loans so they could not be forced into a collective system of lending and most of the losses had to be taken by the debtor countries. This set the pattern: the debtor countries were subjected to harsh market discipline but when the system was in danger, the normal rules were suspended. Banks, whose collective failure would have endangered the system, were bailed out.
1997年，类似的事情再次发生。但那时，银行已经学会了将贷款证券化，不至被迫采用集体出借的做法，而大部分损失不得不由债务国承担。于是形成了一种新的模式：债务国遵守严格的市场戒律，但如果体系遭遇困难，一般规则将暂停执行。这样，银行就得到挽救，尽管它们的集体失败也许已危及到了体系本身。
The financial crisis of 2007/2008 was different because it originated at the center and the periphery countries were drawn into it only after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. The IMF was faced with a novel task: to protect the periphery from a storm that originated at the center. It did not have enough capital but, member countries banded together and raised a trillion dollars. Even so, the IMF has had some difficulties in coping with the situation because it was designed to deal with problems in the public sector and the shortage of credit was impacting mainly the private sector. But, on the whole, the IMF adapted itself to its novel task remarkably well.
2007年至2008年的金融危机则与此不同，因为它起源于中心国，而边缘国家则是在雷曼兄弟公司破产后才被卷入其中的。国际基金组织面临着一项新任务：保护边缘国免受由中心国引发的风暴的影响。虽然该组织没有足够的资金，但各成员国联合起来，筹了一万亿美元的款。即便如此，它在应对该局面时还有—定困难，因为它主要是为解决国营机构的问题而设，而这次信贷危机主要影响的是私营机构。 但从总体上讲，国际货币基金组织在处理这项新任务时表现得还是相当出色的。
