Of course, if you want to put it that way, you could simply say
that Sachs has had longstanding consultancy links with E/SE
Asia. But how about being generous and say that he's seen the
light? Or else, he's simply a benighted academic, offended that
he wasn't consulted by the IMF on the package(s)?
Also, good to know that academics are still into
self-flagellation. Never mind that the IMF's approach does
ultimately derive from one of those ten "economic egghead"
approaches.
As for the region supposedly being different and Sachs'
"apparently maintaining that they still are" -- haven't you
heard? The centre of the world economy has shifted/is shifting
to the region and the crisis is simply a crisis of
emergence-to-dominance :)
FWIW, my 2 sen, devalued 40%.
KJ Khoo
At 4:59 am +0800 12/12/97, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:
> Sachs' position on the IMF, reported in the Financial Times, is perhaps
> not so curious given the amount of money invested in Asia that might be
> lost (on top of the massive sums already lost) if the IMF imposes
> austerity plans and slows growth. The interests of the bankers involved in
> making loans, and the interests of the manufacturers involved in direct
> investment, as well as investors in the markets, are not the same. What
> seems curious is that Sachs has been so identified with the IMF in the
> past. Asia, though, "The Tigers," were supposed to be different. Sachs
> apparently maintains that they still are.
>
> Richard Hutchinson
At 5:27 am +0800 12/12/97, Quee-Young Kim wrote:
> The IMF insulates itself quite effectively from the academic and
> political influences which can be quite muddling and incoherent. You
> can perhaps have ten different approaches toward resolving the current
> economic crisis in Asia if all the "economic" eggheads are allowed to
> come in.
>
> Quee-Young Kim
> University of Wyoming