I think that the globalization of the worlds' markets is a ticking time bomb as long as we allow unregulated capital to flow throughout. It seems as though the "idealism" of these self-regulated financers will in the end catch up with them. That is, market forces do not self-regulate as Adam Smith and the classical economists' philosophy expounds. Did we not learn this from our own stock market crash? Or should I say the "many" we have had? Keynes warned us of the end of Laissez-Faire, yet we do not heed the warnings.
Outstanding report! Fascinating stuff to have Soros explain his concerns about the profound effects of global capitalism, long & short term. I agree with the point that it is arrogant to insist that unregulated global economics is a good thing - would you want to fly in an unregulated airplane?
fort lauderdale, florida
The June 29 Frontline ends with a string of Žexperts' all stating or seemingly implying that the only solution to prevent financial instability and meltdown is more governmental regulation of capital flows. The entire program had just explained that the reason for the 1998 collapse was precisely because of inappropriate government intervention. The Peso, Bhat, and Ruble were artificially propped up by the Mexican, Thai, and Russian and US governments, until the gulf between high artificial value and real value was so great that the currencies and associated markets collapsed in a dramatic panic. Soros and friends would not be betting against a currency if it were not artificially propped up. Also, your program explained well the evil effect of bailing out the financial speculators by the Treasury and IMF - by eliminating the risk these investors face, and in effect transferring the risk and cost away from the gamblers to US taxpayers and citizens in all the affected countries. A Bank president with no personal risk to himself or to the Bank's investors is behaving totally rationally when he takes the riskiest developing market bets, since he gets the rich payoff if the bet wins and gets bailed out free if the bet loses - US banks are now the least risk adverse investors around. The combination of a free market with moronic and clumsy government and IMF interference has proven to be a very bad idea. Adding more inevitably inept interference by government bureaucrats to the mix, as Frontline seems to suggest, is a sad idea.
I wanted to express how much I enjoyed your program. It was incredibly well done and informative. The fact that you can take a boring and somewhat complex subject like macro economics and make it interesting is an accomplishment in and of itself.
Keep up the great work.
new york, ny
Tonight's Frontline program on the financial markets crisis was well done but lacked a sufficiently broad view, in my opinion. "Is this crisis over?" is too ambiguous a question since the obvious answer is that the world will always have series of crisies at any given time that will affect our economy. The equity markets will always be driven by fear and greed and extreems will not be uncommon. But the long term, sensible investor stands the better chance relative to the knee-jerk reactionist investor. After all, opportunities exist in good and bad market conditions.
The Crash--great show, but it did not say what the effect of a crash would have on the average American. Any clue?
Yes. The US has to change its policy and spearhead the move to create international regulatory controls over speculation.
new city, ny