The two phenomena should be accorded a different treatment. While long-term capital flows should be completely liberalized, encouraged and welcomed - the short term, "hot money" type should be controlled and even discouraged. The introduction of fiscally oriented capital controls (as Chile has implemented) is one possibility. The less attractive Malaysian model springs to mind. It is less attractive because it penalizes both the short term and the long-term financial players. But it is clear that an important and integral part of the new International Financial Architecture MUST be the control of speculative money in pursuit of ever-higher yields. There is nothing inherently wrong with high yields - but the capital markets provide yields connected to economic depression and to price collapses through the mechanism of short selling and through the usage of certain derivatives. This aspect of things must be neutered or at least countered. The second lesson is the important role that central banks and other financial authorities play in the precipitation of financial crises - or in their prolongation. Financial bubbles and asset price inflation are the result of euphoric and irrational exuberance - said the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, the legendary Mr. Greenspan and who can dispute this? But the question that was delicately sidestepped was: WHO is responsible for financial bubbles? Expansive monetary policies, well-timed signals in the interest rates markets, liquidity injections, currency interventions, and international salvage operations - are all co-ordinated by central banks and by other central or international institutions. Official INACTION is as conducive to the inflation of financial bubbles as is official ACTION. By refusing to restructure the banking system, to introduce appropriate bankruptcy procedures, corporate transparency and good corporate governance, by engaging in protectionism and isolationism, by avoiding the implementation of anti competition legislation - many countries have fostered the vacuum within which financial crises breed. The third lesson is that international financial institutions can be of some help - when not driven by political or geopolitical considerations and when not married to a dogma. Unfortunately, these are the rare cases. Most IFIs - notably the IMF and, to a lesser extent, the World Bank - are both politicised and doctrinaire. It is only lately and following the recent mega-crisis in Asia, that IFIs began to "reinvent" themselves, their doctrines and their recipes. This added conceptual and theoretical flexibility led to better results. It is always better to tailor a solution to the needs of the client. Perhaps this should be the biggest evolutionary step: