5 ms·

"Then there's always that option of not taking IMF money." Is there? Who have this option when the people in power is going to profit immensely. The IMF is an

"Then there's always that option of not taking IMF money." Is there? Who have this option when the people in power is going to profit immensely. The IMF is an institution that have expired its utility. It made sense when there was fixed exchange rate between countries. Since then, it has mutated to an instrument to impose policies that doesn't work. That's a fact. We could, I suppose, argue about the reason of why those policies are imposed and not others. It could be profit or it could be ideological but we can't argue about the results in contraposition to the results of countries that don't follow that development path.

ptaipale 10y ago
If IMF has expired its utility, then the option of not taking IMF money very obviously is there and we can concentrate on some other ideas. What might they be?
- RobertoG 10y ago
  Follow the development path of Japan, South Korea etc? Because that was what the discussion was about in this thread, or not? I mean, why is not the IMF advising that?
  - varjag 10y ago
    Was South Korea ever in need of an IMF loan to make the ends meet? And mind you it's development path took decades through a fairly unpleasant dictatorship. Is this really better than IMF aid, do you really advocate that?
    - AnAfrican 10y ago
      Yes. South Korea has been in need of an IMF loan. As recently as 1997 https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sp012198a https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sp0121...
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      To first question: actually, yes it did - in 1997, South Korea took a bailout from IMF and restructured the economy. As you can see, it worked fairly well, though it involved some painful changes certainly disdained by many people at the time. (The dismantling of Daewoo, for instance).
  - AnAfrican 10y ago
    Because the devellopment path used by Japan and South Korea is very close to the one used by Zaire and pre-1980 Brazil or Syria and many other places where it failed. And in many cases, those attempts failed by the 70's
hx87 10y ago
> Is there? Who have this option when the people in power is going to profit immensely. If those in power are corrupt to that extent, then the country is screwed no matter what the IMF does.
- jmngomes 10y ago
  Which is the case with Portugal. But the alternatives to seek funding were far from great (e.g. China).
  - RobertoG 10y ago
    Portugal, as we have seen in Greece have not options. In the case of Europe, the CEB is acting as enforcer. When you don't control your central bank you have very few options. In fact, you have surrender your sovereignty.
    - hx87 10y ago
      Surrendering monetary sovereignty can work out as long as everyone also surrenders fiscal sovereignty, with a unified European budget. In the US, that's how states like Kentucky and Mississippi manage to survive.
    - jackcosgrove 10y ago
      The Greeks are not victims. Lots of people there don't pay taxes and at the same time lots of people have government jobs. This went on for decades. That doesn't work, whether it's the Greeks, the Germans, or the IMF in charge. As someone else said, one's economy has to be in a shambles before the need for IMF loans comes up. If you run your economy and government well, you don't need the IMF. The IMF is a convenient scapegoat for irresponsible governments that brought on economic crises. When those governments are democratically elected year in and year out before the crisis, the fault ultimately lies with the people of the country who want to take out more than they put into the economy. Even if the people are not venal, and simply cannot compete in an open marketplace with foreign labor and goods and therefore must depend on their governments for employment in protected industries, they must know on some level that they are living on borrowed time. Hopefully that will focus the mind and spur some people on to gain more skills. Unfortunately this latter group more often than not emigrates to other countries. However, again as others have pointed out, post-communist societies like in east Asia and eastern Europe that have retooled their economies after profound tragedy show that it is possible to dig yourself out of a hole and catch up to the countries that never embraced collectivism. If the Chinese can rise from the ashes of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution and within two generations challenge the USA for economic supremacy, what is holding Greece and Portugal back, where things never got so bad?
AnAfrican 10y ago
>Is there? Who have this option when the people in power is going to profit immensely. Oh but rulers do opt out taking IMF money all the time... Zimbabwe did for the past decade. Angola just this year did ask for IMF money and then pulled back because the conditions were not acceptable. Half of Africa is getting into all sorts of alternative deals (China..) for the same reason. ++++ edit And those unacceptable conditions ? - please be less corrupt... - at least try to have some sort of checks on how the funds are spent - there are other things than building stadiums and palaces unacceptable

ptaipale 10y ago

If IMF has expired its utility, then the option of not taking IMF money very obviously is there and we can concentrate on some other ideas. What might they be?

RobertoG 10y ago
Follow the development path of Japan, South Korea etc? Because that was what the discussion was about in this thread, or not? I mean, why is not the IMF advising that?
- varjag 10y ago
  Was South Korea ever in need of an IMF loan to make the ends meet? And mind you it's development path took decades through a fairly unpleasant dictatorship. Is this really better than IMF aid, do you really advocate that?
  - AnAfrican 10y ago
    Yes. South Korea has been in need of an IMF loan. As recently as 1997 https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sp012198a https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sp0121...
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    To first question: actually, yes it did - in 1997, South Korea took a bailout from IMF and restructured the economy. As you can see, it worked fairly well, though it involved some painful changes certainly disdained by many people at the time. (The dismantling of Daewoo, for instance).
- AnAfrican 10y ago
  Because the devellopment path used by Japan and South Korea is very close to the one used by Zaire and pre-1980 Brazil or Syria and many other places where it failed. And in many cases, those attempts failed by the 70's

hx87 10y ago

> Is there? Who have this option when the people in power is going to profit immensely. If those in power are corrupt to that extent, then the country is screwed no matter what the IMF does.

jmngomes 10y ago
Which is the case with Portugal. But the alternatives to seek funding were far from great (e.g. China).
- RobertoG 10y ago
  Portugal, as we have seen in Greece have not options. In the case of Europe, the CEB is acting as enforcer. When you don't control your central bank you have very few options. In fact, you have surrender your sovereignty.
  - hx87 10y ago
    Surrendering monetary sovereignty can work out as long as everyone also surrenders fiscal sovereignty, with a unified European budget. In the US, that's how states like Kentucky and Mississippi manage to survive.
  - jackcosgrove 10y ago
    The Greeks are not victims. Lots of people there don't pay taxes and at the same time lots of people have government jobs. This went on for decades. That doesn't work, whether it's the Greeks, the Germans, or the IMF in charge. As someone else said, one's economy has to be in a shambles before the need for IMF loans comes up. If you run your economy and government well, you don't need the IMF. The IMF is a convenient scapegoat for irresponsible governments that brought on economic crises. When those governments are democratically elected year in and year out before the crisis, the fault ultimately lies with the people of the country who want to take out more than they put into the economy. Even if the people are not venal, and simply cannot compete in an open marketplace with foreign labor and goods and therefore must depend on their governments for employment in protected industries, they must know on some level that they are living on borrowed time. Hopefully that will focus the mind and spur some people on to gain more skills. Unfortunately this latter group more often than not emigrates to other countries. However, again as others have pointed out, post-communist societies like in east Asia and eastern Europe that have retooled their economies after profound tragedy show that it is possible to dig yourself out of a hole and catch up to the countries that never embraced collectivism. If the Chinese can rise from the ashes of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution and within two generations challenge the USA for economic supremacy, what is holding Greece and Portugal back, where things never got so bad?

AnAfrican 10y ago

>Is there? Who have this option when the people in power is going to profit immensely. Oh but rulers do opt out taking IMF money all the time... Zimbabwe did for the past decade. Angola just this year did ask for IMF money and then pulled back because the conditions were not acceptable. Half of Africa is getting into all sorts of alternative deals (China..) for the same reason. ++++ edit And those unacceptable conditions ? - please be less corrupt... - at least try to have some sort of checks on how the funds are spent - there are other things than building stadiums and palaces unacceptable