Re: The EU question (Response to Louis - II)

["Stuart Lawrence" <stuartwl@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>Mine wrote:

> What makes sense to me is that you are WRONG in assuming that  foreign
> capitalists won't invest in Turkey or Argentina becasue of risky investment
> environment or legal/political obstacles to capitalism. Capital will go
> where it is invited. The Turkish government already reduced the taxes on
> the domestic operations of foreign banks to a minimum. He does not meddle
> with their affairs. Does it ever make sense to you why the City bank
> continues to hold its branch in Turkey even after the crisis?
>
> Wall Street bankers heavily invested in Asia too. how come that these
> neo-liberal gospels could not make a cost benefit analysis before then?
>
> Ironically, the Wall Street bankers, after the crisis, was making the same
> argument as you did-- existence of legal/political obstacles to
> accumulation, crony capitalism, overegulation of banking, etc.. as the
> causes of region's instability (and therefore lack of _good_ capitalism)
>

Of course, if the role of a properly functioning bourgeois state is to socialize
risks and privatize profits, the logical role of multilateral institutions is to
ensure these tasks are carried out diligently, effectively reducing actual risks
to creditors and speculative investors. The actual risk/benefit analysis to be
calculated therefore relates to the political acceptability of any given
investor-bailout program, whether implemented by a national regime, the IMF, or
the US Treasury Dept.

Stuart
stuartwl@xxxxxxxxxx