Interesting. A year or so back in the UK a bank, I think it was HSBC cranked its interest rate up, or did something else that wasn't called for on its STUDENT ACCOUNTS. Within a few days it had backed down. Why? Because a load of students rebelled and using Facebook (I think) organised a campaign against the bank. It was taken up by the media and it soon because a big story. Would it be possible therefore for a bank like Citi to be devasted in the US by an internet led campaign encouraging people to take their cash out and deposit it with another bank. In effect the customers could hold them to ransom. Maybe, maybe not but with the power of the internet organising something like the above it not that hard.
I don't know, there's laws against causing runs on banks. My guess is if you actually got people to yank deposits, they'd throw you in jail.
Yeah, I guess I am just repeating what I've heard - should probably look it up and see if there's actually laws before I start spouting off my mouth. Back to the article, what makes "emerging markets" different than any other? I'm having a hard time thinking of any government that doesn't cater to its elites. Perhaps the US right after its revolution, perhaps the French right after their revolution, but I'm not even sure about that. It seems like the only difference between govs that need help from the IMF and those that don't is that the ones that don't need help are just better at putting the wool over the eyes of the rest of the world, not just their own citizens. Or, putting it in nicer terms, building the trust of the rest of the world. It's all just a confidence game, isn't it?