Jump to content

Talk:1997 Asian financial crisis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Thailand millions and billions

In 1996, an American hedge fund had already sold $400 million of the Thai currency.

This line is without context and needs additional information to make it meaningful. (a) What was the direct effect that this sale had on the baht? (b) Failing that, how did this amount compare to the money supply of the baht? (c) Was this a short sale or a sale? (d) Which hedge fund? If this information is not estimatable then it would be good to cite a source explaining what was the significance of this action.

On 11 August, the IMF unveiled a rescue package for Thailand with more than 16 billion dollars. The IMF approved on 20 August, another bailout package of 3.9 billion dollars.

The "bailout package" should be explained briefly. Where does the money go? Who are the direct and indirect beneficiaries? Tempshill 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Glaring omission

This article hardly mentions the role of hot money inflows as a central role of the crisis, which is shocking since the withdrawal of short term securities investments is integral to both the currency collapse and the constrictive interest rate policy of these countries. There is mention of Latin America but there should be at least one specific mention of the Mexican peso crisis of 1994, widely seen as a precursor to this.

George Soros mention needs to be contextualized into the Malaysian PM's statement and the specific allegations against him. The same goes with the IMF. Overall, this article is junk and has huge omissions.

I've made a quick and dirty improvement on this article but it really is going to take more cleaning up. 18.251.5.237 17:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

China references

Removed Gordon Chang's The Coming Collapse of China since the crisis of 1998 wasn't the main topic. A reference to Lardy would be good, but he didn't write China Dream.

Roadrunner 07:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Name

I'm a Malaysian and a New Zealander and I have to say, I rarely hear of this crisis called the East Asian financial crisis or the IMF financial crisis. Mostly, it's called the Asian financial crisis. I appreciate that there are people that call it the IMF crisis and the East Asian financial crisis and the fact that Malaysia largely ignored the IMF means the IMF doesn't cop much of a blame for the problems in Malaysia (Soros and currency speculators are the general targets) so things are seen a little different there (no arguments on the fairness of any of these assessments I'm simply pointing out how things are seen).

So I'm not suggesting we remove mention of these names but I wonder whether Asian financial crisis might be the better primary name for the article since there is no other financial crisis that generally goes by the name and IMHO anyway, it's the most common name for it. Also, IMHO anyway again Asian financial crisis is the more accurate name. Most people, I believe tend to think of East Asia as China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, (Taiwan), perhaps Mongolia and this is also the definition supported by wikipedia. South East Asian countries such as Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia etc are usually not thought of as parts of East Asia even though you could argue technically they are.

While I dislike Google searches as proof of popularity, a Google search does also support my theory since "East Asian financial crisis" finds only 100k whereas "Asian financial crisis" nearly 2 million. While Asian financial crisis will also find East Asian financial crisis and other things such as people talking about a future Asian financial crisis, this does seem to indicate that Google's index supports that Asian financial crisis is the more popular term. NB, interestingly enough, one of the links to East Asian finacial crisis is a speech by some Thai minister to the ASEAN conference. Nil Einne 13:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and other issues

I think someone, preferbly someone who knows more about economics needs to go through this article. While some parts of it are written well enough, other parts need to be improved because they currently present the POVs of some economists as facts rather then POVs. I can't be bothered giving any specific examples but I do feel it needs to be looked at by someone Nil Einne 13:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Combined financial and currency crisis

The title of this article should be East Asian currency and Financial Crisis. The crisis was a so-called twin crisis where the exchange rate regime collapses together with the financial system. The title is a first indication of the incredibly low quality of this article. The section on the causes is best described as belonging to a high school paper. It is simplistic, superficial and misleading in places. Now it is just rubbish. MartinDK 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Financial Crisis Topic

There ought to be a topic or a list for Financial Crises. This page is under the topic "stock market crashes", allthough correct, this is too specific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.93.17.213 (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

  • It should actually probably be listed under a "category" named Financial Crises so all of the crises can be referenced together. Yes, including stock market crashes would be important as well... I will probably create this category and link as many of these articles under it. Stevenmitchell 09:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

technology

technology technology technology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.6.25 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Philippines

there is no usable content in this section, save for some economic indicators. and then it goes on to talk about the terms of Philippine presidents. This is about the AFC, not about the Philippine government. it needs to be rewritten. perhaps some Philippine researchers can come up with more relevant content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.174.198 (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Earlier unsigned items

Article has many errors. Thailand, not South Korea, is seen to be the origin of the crisis

Asian, not east Asian crisis is the widely used description for this event

more importantly east asian is not used as a descriptive by anyone of consequence. The commonly used terms for various sub-regional groupings are far east (japan, china, korea), southeast asia (singapore, malaysia, thailand, indonesia, philippines and ASEAN vietnam, cambodia, laos, burma), indochina (vietnam, laos, cambodia), south asia (india, pakistan, bangladesh, sri lanka), and sometimes the pacific islands (papua new guinea, solomon islands, tonga, vanuatu). australia is also geographically asia (asia-pacific).

"East Asia" is actually used quite widely, as synonymous with the term "Far East" which you quote. Additionally, though the term "Asia-Pacific" includes Australia, it is part of the "Pacific" element, the continent of Oceania, sometimes called Australia, and not part of Asia. LordAmeth 12:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, your Lordship, I disagree. Yes, "Asian Financial Crisis" is the proper name, and the 1997 is inaccurate (the worst of the exchange rate depreciations was in January 1998). But, East Asia is indeed used by many of us to describe China, Japan, the NICs and ASEAN. If you want to add South Asia, call it "Asia." If Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Island (including PNG) are part of the region, call it "Asia-Pacific." That's what the rest of us do. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, can't tell where one comment ends and the next starts. Apologies to LordAmeth is the first bit wasn't his. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

Mainland China, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam were relatively unaffected. Japan was not affected much by this crisis but was going through its own long-term economic difficulties.

Though called the "East Asian" crisis because it originated in East Asia, its effects rippled throughout the globe and caused a global financial crisis, with major effects felt as widely as Russia, Brazil, and the United States.

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

  • Maybe there is a contradiction but it is known as the Asian Financial Crisis so that is how people will reference it. Additionally, in fact Japan was heavily affected by the crisis as they were the principal financiers that jettisoned the crisis. The ripple effects throughout the globe were basically the result of us having a global economy. As noted below, China and Taiwan were relatively unaffected for the insular reasons as specified by C.K. Chen... Ultimately, the real contradiction is that the U.S., as the primary financial backer of the IMF and World Bank, had to pay for what can be most likely characterized as financial mismanagement by the Japanese government... Stevenmitchell 10:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The writer of this article has made a lot of assumption. In Singapore and Malaysia, the nation suffered too, but the Government did a lot to bring up the economy.

For Malaysian, the government encouraged almost every family to farm their own food, even in the urban city.

In Singapore, almost all the small medium companies in Jurong area (Industrial town) were closed down. But the government pumped in money to creat more jobs to bring up the economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greywolf05 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here? In a word, yes. There was serious suffering throughout East Asia. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the description and the conclusions about Asian Economic Crisis (not just financial!) of this article is in error.

The most serious error of this article is that it described the sequence of events wrong and thus leading to a totally erroneous conclusion of the casue and the effect of this crisis. Many Asian countries had attracted foreign capitals to manufacture consumer goods to be exported to The United States of America (abbreviated as USA or US), using their very low cost labor and loose environmental control against industrial polutions as the atraction. This developement model is pioneered by Taiwan. To make this model work, the currencis of those countries need to be pegged to US Dollar when Dollar is weak against Yen, since the major capital suppliers were Japan (Korea borrowed money from outside to start this model by its own). From the middle of 1995 Japan has introduced near zero interest rate policy, and had unleashed yen carry trades that had pushed US Dollar sharply higher against Japanese Yen. Those countries hit hard by the crisis were persistently pegging their currencies to US Dollar, apparently listened to some economists in USA who claimed the peg to US Dollar would eliminate inflation; some of those experts even went to the extreme to advise some developing countries to abandon their own currencies and adopt US Dollar as their legal tender. The result of rapidly appreciating currencies of those countries, along with US Dollar, vs. Yen was to price the goods manufactured in those affected countries out of US market. The international hot money represented by hedge funds were also mislead by those US economists and thought the currency peg to US Dollar was iron clad. The hot money thus poured into the debt instruments of those countries that carries much higher interest rates than the bonds of US entities; hedge funds typically buy those emerging countries' debt instruments and short sell US Dollar denominated bonds as hedge. Those Eastern and South Eastern Asian countries started to run trade deficits, whereas saw their equity and real estate prices rose sharply due to the influx of hot money. This picture is exactly the same as USA that enjoys prosperity by running trade deficits, equivalent to borrow from foreigners and spend. The major difference between those developing countries and USA is the size of asset base. With much smaller asset base than USA, the hot money quickly noticed that "Emperor has no cloth". When one large hedge fund started to run, the domino effect had started, and thus the Asian economic crisis.

The effect of this crisis is like a tsunami. It first hit Japan as Korea was hit, and pushed its wobbling economy down one more level. As Asian countries were forced to devaluate their currencies sharply vs. US Dollar, the crisis spread to other countries that had also pegged their currencies to US Dollar. By 1998 Russian defaulted on its debt obligations, triggering the crisis of Long Term Capital Management, and as the result US Dollar fell sharply against Yen. By the summer of 1999 the tsunami reached Latin America and forced US Dollar down to near 100 Yen/Dollar level. The twin debacle of US Dollar finally reined in US trade deficit from the middle of 2000. As the appetite of borrowing from foreigners to spend was reined in, US economic bubble bursted and US stock price fell sharply starting from the middle of 2000.

Taiwan escaped the hard hit of the crisis because by that time it already advanced quite a bit in its economic base and was clever enough to allow its currency to go down vs. US Dollar along with Yen (see Comment 39 posted on the website www.forcastglobaleconomy.com about the evolution of Taiwan ). China had devaluated its currency prior to the crisis by an enormous amount and pegged to US Dollar only after the devaluation. Thus the runup of Dollar vs. Yen was not very serious for Chinese product's competitive power. Also China only let foreign money in, but did not allow them to flow out. India had not undertaken the "Taiwan model", so was also not affected by the crisis. For the whole discussion of this crisis and Japan's near zero interest rate policy, please see Article 1 posted on the website www.forcastglobaleconomy.com. By. C. K. Chen of forcastglobaleconomy.com, March 5, 2007

  • I am commenting on C.K. Chen's contribution to the understanding of the causes of the financial crisis (or multiple crises). I agree with much of what C.K. observes, in particular with the triggers that elicited it. I am not certain who the investors were that C.K. refers to in Asia, but as I was working on Wall Street for a number of financial firms for virtually all of the 1990's, it was a common theme of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and particularly the Financial Times to write articles featuring Asian executives who lamented that the fact that there was zero investment from the U.S. and little from Europe in Asia. These executives, knowing their interviews were being given to U.S.-based newspapers, were appealing to U.S. investors to offset what they described as almost universal Japanese investment in the region. Obviously, the executives were concerned for reasons of dependence, but it highlights the non-existence of American and European investments prior to the crisis.
  • Isn't it possible and even likely that the underlying cause of the financial debacle was the near-total investment by the Japanese, using a financial currency of an economy that was ultimately in the throes of what we now know to be a 17 year recession (or depression) in Japan from 1987 to 2004. The fact that this investment expansion was culled using a currency with a near-zero interest rate issued by the Bank of Japan (which engendered a currency that didn't even account for the cost of inflation) was perceived as very dangerous and extraordinarily risky during frequent warnings by U.S. Treasury officials even prior to the emergence of the financial epidemic. Ultimately, wasn't the real cause of the crisis, the overvalued Yen and the business expansion of the Asian economies financed by that inflated currency underwritten by a declining economy of Japan? Stevenmitchell 09:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
* I don't know why CK Chen believes direct investors into East Asia were attracted by weak environmental protection legislation. My 25 years in that particular field points to exactly the opposite: I know of no examples where MNCs invested due to weak environmental controls, and numerous ones where local companies polluted heavily, legally or otherwise. As for portfolio investments, where the flight to the dollar caused massive devaluations, that was purely domestic.
* More, the model was Japan (not Taiwan) and it worked very well indeed even where currencies were not pegged to artificially low exchange rates. The yen rose 31.8% against the US dollar in 1971-73, and 86.4% in 1985-88 (a time when the NT$ rose 39.4% and the Korean won 18.9%). But, if Mr/Ms Chen is trying to say that the 1991 Japanese stock market collapse was the cause of the Asian Financial Crisis, he is discussing something unrelated to this topic. Japan was in deep trouble long before the AFC even started.
* As for Taiwan, the only reasons it didn’t suffer as much are (a) development was based on equity, not debt; (b) the capital markets were still much less open than others in the region; and (c) the 1995-96 missile tests and military exercises by the Chinese PLA burst the bubble well ahead of the AFC. If anything in Taiwan was particularly “clever,” it happened in the 1950s and 1960s.
* And, considering that the Renminbi was already significantly weak on the trade account – the 50% January 1, 1994, devaluation was strictly domestic – that wouldn’t have made much difference to trade patterns. Particularly when China’s exports at the time were 25-30% of Japan’s. Finally, the sieve called Chinese capital controls never kept any money from flowing in or out, if its owner was determined to make the transaction. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mexico

The Asian financial crisis actually started in Mexico, such as was contagion at the time it spread to Asia and because most of the action was in Asia it became known as the Asian Financial crisis. Happy to jot a small piece on this if welcome?

kthxbye

Mexico? Why not in California, say ca. 1849? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Speculative attack

I took out the article's first mention of the phrase "speculative attack" because it sounded like nonsense. Noticing that it appeared a few more times in this article, I did some more checking, and discovered that it's a real expression people use sometimes. But I couldn't find a clear source as to what exactly it means. Can anybody help me out? - Nat Krause 07:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It refers to the situation that can arise when a government or central bank pegs its currency against another currency, and private traders are skeptical of its ability to keep that commitment, so they bet against it. Consider 1992, when several European nations, including the UK, were co-ordinating their currency moves in expectation of creating a common currency. Soros became skeptical that the Bank of England could support the pound to the extent necessary to keep it within the required range, and became short-selling it. This forced the Bank of England, in order to stay within the system, to buy pounds. If Soros had broken first he would have lost a bundle -- as it was, though, other speculators jumped on the selling bandwagon, the central bankers gave up first, allowed the pound to fall out of the ERM, and Soros made a billion of them in the process. (That is why the pound remains a separate currency from the euro today.) That is a paradigm speculative attack. --Christofurio 12:22, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I also took out a mentioning of "illegal" speculative attacks in the horribly error ridden section on Malaysia. I left most of the errors up because some people believe them, alternative (and correct) explanations are below. - Gibby

Malaysian law doesnt permit trading of Malaysian shares except through KLSE and legitimate registered brokers. The dumping of Malaysian shares in Singapore on the Central Limit Order Book (CLOB) system were all illegal derivative trades.

The dumping of Malaysian shares in Singapore on the Central Limit Order Book (CLOB) system were all legal derivative trades, according to the law of the jurisdiction in which the trades took place (Singapore). Malaysian law only applies inside Malaysia. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Title needs "1997" in it

The title of this article should be "Asian financial crisis of 1997" or "1997 Asian financial crisis". This wasn't the first and won't be the last "Asian financial crisis". Tempshill 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It was the first Asian Financial Crisis, and it didn't only take place in 1997. The worst was in 1998. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Cleaned up the first paragraph. Removed the NPOV tag in the second (the massive amounts of unfinished buildings that dotted the Bangkok skyline well into this decade prove that it is not a bias view to say real estate was part of the problem). Also, took out “drastically reduced import earnings” as a nonsensical statement (earnings from exports went up 7.4% in dollar terms in 1999 and 19.3% in 2000), and the comment that there was no foreign debt. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Role of Ethnic Chinese minorities?

I think this article needs to highlight the illegal activities of the majority ethnic Chinese in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand- which was manifested in violence toward that sector of society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.144.238 (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

IMF crisis = Asian crisis?

You say "It is also commonly referred to as the Asian currency crisis or locally, although inaccurately, as the IMF crisis." Could you expand a little this earlier on in the article? It's at least controversial among Stiglitz et al.

I'm also a little concerned about this re pov. The term 'IMF crisis' does not seem to me sufficiently uncontroversially inaccurate as to justify the qualifier "although inaccurately", in particular in the first line of the article. Could this be removed, or added later? Jamestplunkett 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In Korea at least, that time is nearly always referred to as "the IMF time", "the IMF crisis", or just simply "the IMF". It's an accurate term only if you think the IMF created the crisis. You could argue that the IMF's advice to Korea made the situation worse but that is not the same -- and frankly, every country wound up taking the IMF's help out of their own free will. It's doubtful their economies would have recovered as they did without the IMF.ThreeAnswers 05:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You are joking right? How can you call the IMF "help"? IMF Crisis is perfectly correct. Jin29 18:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Just see the hypocrisy- the USA is currrently bailing out Freddie and Fannie and a whole bunch of others, whereas the IMF was telling countries to not bail out their banks and to just let them fail and open up stuff (so that foreigners could buy them up cheap?). Maybe the USA should let Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae etc to fail, and open things up so that China and Japan can buy them all up. Anon 04:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.41.11 (talk)

Error in article image

Indonesia is incorrectly labeled as "Malaysia" on the map image at the head of this article. --66.100.252.11 (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.100.252.11 (talk)

Asian financial crisis' effect in California

California was tied to the Asian financial crisis, due to a large number of companies perform a lot of business errands, financial deals and trade relations in Asian/Pacific rim countries. In the mid and late 90s, the state economy was recovering but hasn't fully blossomed the way the economies in the Midwestern and Southeastern US have recovered. Mexico and Latin America had devalued currencies at the time, has an effect on California and the US-Mexican border, despite you have the NAFTA treaty to suppose bring an economic miracle in that part of the country. But, the Asian/Pacific and Latin American economic woes have brought forth a new wave of immigration into California and the rest of the USA in the late 1990's, since the Northeast and Northwest US regions enjoyed a remarkable economic boom with less dependency to Asian markets and the Mexican peso devaluation. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

George Soros

Can this article mention Soros, at least in the sub-topic about Thailand. I think he affects the crisis much, but the article mentioned him too little, if any. However, my English is not excellent and I am afraid of violating the neutrality, so I don't want to do the editing by myself. Just one question, is Soros's efforts in the crisis as much as I thought? 219.79.243.127 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

inflation

In the Thailand section it says that inflation was "reasonably low", but then in the Indonesia section it says Unlike Thailand, Indonesia had low inflation, --86.161.0.97 (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Add new information

I added new information about the Indonesian side of this crisis. For those who might be curious about my source, its Michael Pettis, THE VOLATILITY MACHINE (2001), a very insightful study of the liquidity-trap difficulties that arise for emerging economies.

hey guys, i'm new to editing wiki, so maybe it's not the right place, but i made a simple Hebrew page for this article, and i would like to link this article to the Hebrew version as well. in the left box like all the other languages. would you help me do that?

the link to the hebrew version is:

http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%A8_%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%99_%D7%91%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%94_(1997)&oldid=9745115

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jganmor (talk • contribs) 10:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Krugman section

Why even bother care what the anonymous "many" consider Krugman's views? Unless we can find someone or some group to pin on "many" I don't think that this should be in the article. It doesn't add anything that isn't already in the wikifactual record. Themusicgod1 (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source for the Citation request in the History section: http://worldeconomiccrisis.blogspot.com/2007/12/1997-east-asian-financial-crisis.html "Krugman would be seen by many as prescient after the financial crisis became full-blown, though he himself stated that he had not predicted the crisis or foreseen its depth." 173.210.125.42 (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thai debt situation

The article states that Thailand had acquired some kind of crushing debt burden in the first section, but is this really true? Radelet and Sachs (1998) claims that the government debt situation deteriorated "partly in response to the crisis itself, rather than as an independent cause" and the IMF's World Economic Outlook data seems to back this up because their gross government debt is only about 15% of GDP in 1996 (and goes up to 40% in 1997). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.122.183 (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

The tone of this article is far from neutral. It treats cavalierly the views of economists such as Stiglitz. Even though their views are well founded.

Furthermore towards the end the author declares flat out that macro economic polices are not sustainable. This is a matter of opinion and should be qualified asuch in stead of being stated as fact.

Then there is the role of the IMF during the crises itself. The article mentions IMF rescue packages but fails to mention the contents of those packages and their effect in either deepening or alleviating the crisis

Agreed - can we mark this accordingly please? Particularly the IMF section is a terrible mix of opinion and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.22.235 (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

First Paragraph Makes No Sense

The first paragraph of this article is more-or-less gibberish. I wish non-native English speakers would refrain from editing entries on the English language wikipedia. Could somebody with more knowledge of the crisis tidy it up a little? Noisms (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1997 Asian financial crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Problems with this Article

This is one of the lower-quality articles that I have read on Wikipedia: it mixes fact and opinion in many instances and at the end makes the broad and economically unfounded assertion that all macroeconomic policies (i.e. all large-scale, market-wide economic changes) are bound to fail. Is there some process we can all go through to re-write this from the ground up?

I agree. It is very basis and states opinions as if they were fact to the extreme of misleading people. Many parts of it are very anti-IMF in their opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.83.235 (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. This reads much more like an op-ed than a statement of objective facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.107.185.191 (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 1997 Asian financial crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Needs more sources

A lot of the info on the page lacks sources 50.201.35.218 (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsupported

This supposition: "Another possible cause of the sudden risk shock may also be attributable to the handover of Hong Kong sovereignty on 1 July 1997." is neither supported in the text nor defended by a working footnote.DOR (HK) (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 1997 Asian financial crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1997 Asian financial crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1997 Asian financial crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:1997_Asian_financial_crisis/Archive_1&oldid=1060681508"