Perhaps the question is too vague. So let me give a hint:
- after the collapse of the financial system in the U.S.;
- after the collapse of the financial system in the U.K.;
- after the collapse of the financial system in much of the Western Europe;
- after the collapse of the financial system in the Eastern Europe;
- after the collapse of the financial system in the emerging countries;
- after the collapse of the Russian economy in 1998;
- after the collapse of the Mexican economy in 1994;
- after the collapse of the financial system in Argentina in 2001;
- after the collapse of the “Asian” economies in 1998 – that would be Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, The Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan;
- after the economic and financial crisis in 1998 in Latin America – that would be Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Columbia, Uruguay;
- after the collapse of the Japanese economy that has been going on for almost two decades;
- after the protracted economic and financial crisis in Turkey in 1980s and 1990s and the 2000s that saw Turkish lira lose its value 1,000,000 times;
After all these crises, what should you conclude when you hear of the crisis in Dubai?
You must conclude that theses economic and financial crises cannot, by definition, be aberrations or exceptions. They are more like a natural phase of the system, the inevitable and necessary aspect of its operation.
That is the subject of the Vols. 4 and 5 of of Speculative Capital: the crisis as the “property” of the financial system currently in place in much of the world, with all the social, economic and financial implications that follow.
Stay tuned.
