現在我們再來聽一遍克雷寧教授這段談話的原文。（英文略）

二十世紀末的亞洲經濟危機發生后，很對經濟學家認為短期資本的流動效應與長期投資以及商品服務貿易的效應有很大不同。香港匯豐銀行高級經濟師約翰愛德華茲對此作了解釋。他說：

There's an intrinsic flaw in the system. There's no constraint at all on short-term lending, international lending, but there's no international lender of the last resort facility which can assure this debt can be redeemed.

Of course it's being spent on projects which have a life longer than the term of the debt. I mean, that's a rather complicated way of saying that there's a mismatch between the term of the lending and the investment period for which it's being used, as there is in the case of domestic banks - if you have a cheque account at a bank, the bank is in fact using that to lend money on projects which might have a life of two or three, or longer years, but you can withdraw the money tomorrow. And the way in which this is reconciled for a bank is ultimately, say the Reserve Bank of Australia can provide liquidity, has a lender of the last resort role.

But there's no such role internationally, and that means that lenders have an incentive to stampede, to have a run on a country. And at the moment we don't have a way of dealing with that.

下面我們把約翰愛德華茲的這段談話和中文翻譯分段聽一遍：（英文略）

這個體系有一個固有的缺陷：對國際短期借貸沒有任何的約束限制，同時也沒有任何國際“最后貸款人”機制來確保借款能夠獲得償還。

這些借款當然都是用于項目期限長于借款期限的項目。我是說，用一種比較復雜的說法來解釋，那就是貸款期限與使用貸款的投資期限不相配。正如在國內銀行發生的情況一樣。如果你在一家銀行有一個支票帳戶，銀行實際上把你的錢借貸出去用于可能會持續兩到三年或更長時間的項目，而你可以在明天就取出存款。對銀行來說這種情況最終可通過類似澳大利亞儲備銀行這樣的“最后貸款人”提供流動資金來調節。

但國際上卻沒有這樣的最后貸款人。因此債權人就有了一窩蜂把借款從一個國家轉移出去的動機。現在我們對此還無能為力。

最后我們把愛德華茲這段談話的原文再聽一遍。