not

Great Depression was offspring of killing fields @EU: WWI had destroyed trading patterns, undermined currencies and produced massive public debts. Who would foot the bill for this catastrophe? US had financed UK and FR victories, and expected to be paid back in full. UK and FR demanded that DE carry the cost by paying reparations. DE —which been victorious on their Eastern front and had prevented Allied forces from entering their territory—had agreed to end war in part because of Wilson’s promise not to impose a victor’s peace. When this promise was broken and massive reparations were imposed, a bitter decade-long battle over who would pay what ensued. From this toxic environment of distrust and enmity emerged a series of unsustainable deals,whereby US financed DE’s reparations to UK and FR, which were recycled back to US in form of war debt payments. If US financing dried up –which it did during the late 1920s—the whole scheme would collapse, taking the int’l monetary system with it
http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/globalization/getting-history-right

Nyní, kdy jsou finance americké federální vlády kritickým způsobem závislé na pokračujícím přílivu zahraničního kapitálu, americkou hospodářskou budoucnost budou určovat země, které odmítly americký model kapitalismu. [..] Dochází pouze k odumření jednoho určitého typu kapitalismu – oné zvláštní a vysoce nestabilní verze, která existuje v Americe pouze po dobu posledních dvaceti let. Experiment ve finančním laissez-faire skončil. Tržní ekonomiky, které se nepodrobily deregulaci amerického stylu, tuto krizi přežijí nejstabilněji.
http://www.blisty.cz/2008/9/30/art42968.html

The resistance was formulated in terms of ‘class warfare’, Wall Street against Main Street: why should we help those responsible (‘Wall Street’) and let ordinary borrowers (on ‘Main Street’) pay the price for it? Is this not a clear case of what economists call ‘moral hazard’?/What left and right share in this case is their contempt for big speculators and corporate managers who profit from risky decisions but are protected from failures by ‘golden parachutes’. / While it is true that we live in a society that demands risky choices, it is one in which the powerful do the choosing, while others do the risking./‘Socialism’ is OK,it seems,when it serves to save capitalism. But what if ‘moral hazard’ is inscribed in the fundamental structure of capitalism? / Hypocritical defence of the rich: if you want people to have money to build, dont give it to them directly, help those who’re lending it to them. / Real dilemma is not ‘state intervention or not?’ but ‘what kind of state intervention?’
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v00/n03/zize01_.html