Certainly, events give cause for concern in that direction. There's a rich and varied debate, and the right answer will differ from situation to situation, as with Chilean-style controls. But in most of the cases that we look at countries are actually on the other side of it, creating a bias for short-term capital to save costs. It is sometimes the only kind you can get. It has become clear that without policy change and without strong policies, crises are unlikely to be resolved in any country.
Crises typically follow a period of very substantial capital outflow.
And the provision of liquidity, without changing the conditions that led to the capital outflow, is likely to lead to the outflow of the liquidity, leaving only debt behind. At that moment the situation worsened very dramatically and no longer became amenable to a simple fix through the restoration of policy to restore confidence. But when they do, there are very difficult questions involving finding the right provision of public sector liquidity and private sector involvement. What is clear and now agreed is that this is an area where the answer cannot be extreme. Appropriately conditioned finance has and no doubt will have a constructive role to play in crisis resolution.