If Zimbabwe had the same few billion dollars, could they have avoided their crisis, which didn't rise to an acute crisis level either, on the world stage?
Am I wrong in interpreting that quotation as saying that by jumping on the potential crisis quickly (i.e. what the Fed failed to do with Lehman's), they averted a much more significant draw on the swap line?
Is it so unreasonable to think you are downplaying the psychological significance of having unlimited Fed backing, such that you don't actually need to use it to benefit from it?
If I have a rich uncle who's promised to bail me out, can I live like a pauper, yet be significantly better off than a pauper with no backing whatsoever? If I run into an expense I can't handle will my creditors treat me different because of my implied backstop, than they would treat a beggar with no backstop?
This how happy is the SNB to have the unlimited, permanent currency swap line with the Fed? Is it fair to say that if they hadn't in 2008, the Credit Suisse hing would have been a much more serious crisis (if the country was even still around)?