6 ms·

Well, I was hoping for a fresh outside perspective. We here in the U.S. have been shafted for so long that we've got 'Stockholm Syndrome'. It's time for some wr

Well, I was hoping for a fresh outside perspective. We here in the U.S. have been shafted for so long that we've got 'Stockholm Syndrome'. It's time for some wrath - nothing better than an institution that deals with 3rd world dictators to call out breaches of law. You could call it 'ethical awareness' that an outside perspective can contribute. Granted, given actual policy, the U.S. situation is unique and therefore the IMF's experience might not directly apply, e.g. I don't think that too many developing nations failed because of 'credit default swaps'. However, many bankers currently (and in the past) are in policy positions, and suddenly the lessons from corruption and aggregation of power in 3rd world countries apply.

anamax 18y ago
> It's time for some wrath - nothing better than an institution that deals with 3rd world dictators to call out breaches of law. The IMF doesn't "deal with" 3rd world dictators or "call out breaches of law". > You could call it 'ethical awareness' that an outside perspective can contribute. And you could call it a pony for all the good it would do. "Outside" doesn't tell you anything about the value of a perspective. > However, many bankers currently (and in the past) are in policy positions, and suddenly the lessons from corruption and aggregation of power in 3rd world countries apply. If you're arguing that "IMF bankers will fix things", you're ignoring the fact that IMF bankers are what got us into this and we're currently using IMF bankers. (Guess where the current treasury secretary used to work.) If you're arguing that the IMF is used to dealing with corrupt bankers, you're simply wrong. And, if you're arguing that the US has problems because of corrupt bankers, you don't know anything useful about said problems. > Well, I was hoping for a fresh outside perspective. Hope is not a plan. Change is not necessary good. And an outside perspective isn't necessarily relevant. (Different can be good or bad.) And, it's not "fresh". > We here in the U.S. have been shafted for so long that we've got 'Stockholm Syndrome'. One of the symptoms is grasping at anything, without regard for whether it actually helps or is even relevant. So, to end on a positive note, it's likely that you've accurately explained why you're thrashing around uselessly.
- christofd 18y ago
  Excuse me please, Sir. This is just language mumbo-jumbo you're playing here... slicing and dicing things that can be interpreted in any fashion you want to. My points are perfectly valid: that aggregation of power in the U.S. financial system has led to hazards and that a comparison to developing nations can lead to insights on power abuse. The next time you slice and dice me like this I'll call it out for what it is: trolling. You can't just take apart sentences and push them back slanted with any angle you want to spin on them. Further, the decisiveness in which you answer, e.g. "you could call it pony", 5 x "you're wrong", "uselessly", "hope is not a plan" is inappropriate. You are not on solid ground yet your language suggests so. I have been to graduate school in economics at one of the best schools in the world. My friendly language in which I try to accommodate other views is not an invitation to ignite fickle territorial battles. Geez, this is getting narrow-minded.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > that aggregation of power in the U.S. financial system has led to hazards Yes. > and that a comparison to developing nations can lead to insights on power abuse. You've yet to show that the different aggregations have any useful similarity. You've misstated what the IMF does, you've misstated the IMF's success rate, and you've ignored how IMF folk have been involved. > The next time you slice and dice me like this I'll call it out for what it is: trolling. "call it out"? Playground. (Also, that's not what trolling means.) Yes, I'm being blunt, but you're babbling. There's a good reason why you're not citing any supporting facts. We're currently at I'm mean but correct and you're nice and wrong. I can live with that. > You can't just take apart sentences and push them back slanted with any angle you want to spin on them. Feel free to show how I've twisted your words or made factual errors.
    - christofd 18y ago
      I have not misstated what the IMF does, I have not pegged the IMF to a defined success rate nor have I ignored or somehow covered up involvement of IMF staff. I know that you could interpret that I might have meant that, but I did not exactly say that. Overly aggressive or pointed responses on discussion boards do count as trolling in my book. Regarding these quick cut-and-paste responses of yours: I could write a simple program that extracts a sentence with a high density of technical words, then puts a forward arrow before it, trails it with a linefeed and then inserts a random response, such as "you're babbling" or "you're wrong", or just states the opposite of the statement (that's more difficult). How about a coherent response using the English language? I don't need to point out how exactly different aggregations of power have any useful similarity, since we are still in research mode here. My central point remains valid (we need all the input we can get), and actually so does yours, which was about questioning the track record of the IMF.

anamax 18y ago

> It's time for some wrath - nothing better than an institution that deals with 3rd world dictators to call out breaches of law. The IMF doesn't "deal with" 3rd world dictators or "call out breaches of law". > You could call it 'ethical awareness' that an outside perspective can contribute. And you could call it a pony for all the good it would do. "Outside" doesn't tell you anything about the value of a perspective. > However, many bankers currently (and in the past) are in policy positions, and suddenly the lessons from corruption and aggregation of power in 3rd world countries apply. If you're arguing that "IMF bankers will fix things", you're ignoring the fact that IMF bankers are what got us into this and we're currently using IMF bankers. (Guess where the current treasury secretary used to work.) If you're arguing that the IMF is used to dealing with corrupt bankers, you're simply wrong. And, if you're arguing that the US has problems because of corrupt bankers, you don't know anything useful about said problems. > Well, I was hoping for a fresh outside perspective. Hope is not a plan. Change is not necessary good. And an outside perspective isn't necessarily relevant. (Different can be good or bad.) And, it's not "fresh". > We here in the U.S. have been shafted for so long that we've got 'Stockholm Syndrome'. One of the symptoms is grasping at anything, without regard for whether it actually helps or is even relevant. So, to end on a positive note, it's likely that you've accurately explained why you're thrashing around uselessly.

christofd 18y ago
Excuse me please, Sir. This is just language mumbo-jumbo you're playing here... slicing and dicing things that can be interpreted in any fashion you want to. My points are perfectly valid: that aggregation of power in the U.S. financial system has led to hazards and that a comparison to developing nations can lead to insights on power abuse. The next time you slice and dice me like this I'll call it out for what it is: trolling. You can't just take apart sentences and push them back slanted with any angle you want to spin on them. Further, the decisiveness in which you answer, e.g. "you could call it pony", 5 x "you're wrong", "uselessly", "hope is not a plan" is inappropriate. You are not on solid ground yet your language suggests so. I have been to graduate school in economics at one of the best schools in the world. My friendly language in which I try to accommodate other views is not an invitation to ignite fickle territorial battles. Geez, this is getting narrow-minded.
- anamax 18y ago
  > that aggregation of power in the U.S. financial system has led to hazards Yes. > and that a comparison to developing nations can lead to insights on power abuse. You've yet to show that the different aggregations have any useful similarity. You've misstated what the IMF does, you've misstated the IMF's success rate, and you've ignored how IMF folk have been involved. > The next time you slice and dice me like this I'll call it out for what it is: trolling. "call it out"? Playground. (Also, that's not what trolling means.) Yes, I'm being blunt, but you're babbling. There's a good reason why you're not citing any supporting facts. We're currently at I'm mean but correct and you're nice and wrong. I can live with that. > You can't just take apart sentences and push them back slanted with any angle you want to spin on them. Feel free to show how I've twisted your words or made factual errors.
  - christofd 18y ago
    I have not misstated what the IMF does, I have not pegged the IMF to a defined success rate nor have I ignored or somehow covered up involvement of IMF staff. I know that you could interpret that I might have meant that, but I did not exactly say that. Overly aggressive or pointed responses on discussion boards do count as trolling in my book. Regarding these quick cut-and-paste responses of yours: I could write a simple program that extracts a sentence with a high density of technical words, then puts a forward arrow before it, trails it with a linefeed and then inserts a random response, such as "you're babbling" or "you're wrong", or just states the opposite of the statement (that's more difficult). How about a coherent response using the English language? I don't need to point out how exactly different aggregations of power have any useful similarity, since we are still in research mode here. My central point remains valid (we need all the input we can get), and actually so does yours, which was about questioning the track record of the IMF.