Maybe It’s Time to Listen to the IMF

So the Democrats want to celebrate their “historical” achievement?  Did anyone catch what the International Monetary Fund had to say?  And mind you…they made a deliberate point of issuing this statement about health plans and debt, on the same day the pin-heads in Washington were “fixing” our problems.

Here’s the part that first caught my attention:

“The IMF warned the world’s wealthiest nations Sunday to watch their surging levels of government debt, saying it could drag down the growth needed to ensure continued economic recovery.”

And what is driving this surge?

“The ballooning of government debt comes amid rising health and pension spending.”

Yeah, the IMF is telling us something we’ve been trying to tell the Democrats.  And what does the IMF say will happen?

“undermine confidence in the economic recovery” and “large public debt could lead to higher interest rates and slower growth.”

But hey… what does the IMF really know?  So why don’t they just get with the program and endorse SnowBama – after all, he won a Noble Peace prize and they didn’t.  Don’t they know if SnowBama says this is good for America, then it has to be good, because he wouldn’t steer us wrong…. would he?




7 Responses

  1. Oh, come on! The IMF is consistently wrong and they’re nothing more than an international pimp for the failed ideas of the Chicago School.

    • Mike – ironic you say ideas from Chicago are failed ideas. I’m going to include one whopper of an “idea” from Chicago – take a guess who.

      As for the IMF being consistantly wrong – I think that’s in the area of their saying “oh…you can trust this bloody dictator to use the money for his people”. The point they were pointing out, is some countries are about to get hammered. Sure, we can print all the money we want, but we have to pay those T-bills. And if the banks across the world feel you are a credit risk, wow – sure going to make for a mighty interesting project to sell those bonds.

      And Mike – with you being in England – I would think you would be a might bit more familiar with what’s going on in Greece. Take a look there – good example of what happens when the cost of all those social programs exceeds the countries ability to pay for them, or to continue raising money to do the same.

      Cradle to grave nanny-state – a sure way for any country to dig itself into debt.


  2. A cheap shot, especially given that the Chicago school of economics is responsible for the disastrous supply side economics of Reagan and both Bushes.

    The IMF is consistently wrong, in almost all particulars – when dealing with underdeveloped countries such as those in South America and sub-Saharan Africa, their policy is to lend only upon acceptance of ideologically-driven conditions such as the selling of as many of a country’s natural/public resources as possible to international (for which read Western) corporations and other such failed Monetarist ideas. When the IMF put conditions on the economic activities of Argentina and Kenya, guess what happened? As an institution, the IMF is poorly-managed, ideologically-driven and arse about face when it comes to preventing financial collapse.

    As regarding Greece – England is not part of the Eurozone, so the effects are minimal on us. Furthermore, plenty of countries without comprehensive social programmes are circling the drain as well. You cannot blame the effects of a global financial crisis within a country solely on the internal policies of said country; yes, Greece overextended its finances, but it’s not the only country to do so, and to blame its current financial troubles on its social programmes is disingenuous at best.

    This reply would’ve come sooner, but I’ve been off sick. Food poisoning.

    • Yes – there are plenty of countries without comprehensive health care, and they are “circling the drain”. But the response doesn’t say anything to counter my assertation that much of Greece’s problem comes from the strain the social welfare programs have placed on their government’s ability to continue funding itself and still being able to provide these same nanny-state programs.

      Second – maybe England was right to stay out – otherwise, they may have found themselves in the same predicament as the other countries which are part – namely, having to take from the bounty they produce, and give it to another country which has demonstrated it is unable to effectively manage it’s economy, just to avoid taking a hit.

      This more akin to “doesn’t matter how successful you are – you co-signed the loan for your neighber, he never stopped being fiscally responsible, but now you have to keep him out of bankruptcy to keep from joining him”. Easy way to avoid this situation – don’t co-sign the loan.


      • Again, the example of other countries is a hit against your assertion, and I should remind you that an assertion without evidence needs no counter. The burden of evidence lies with you to show that a) Greece’s social welfare programmes are counter to its economic security per se and b) that they are related to its current financial crisis, and all you’ve done thus far is assert it.

        As regards the economic situation of the European Union – how is it any different in principle to the money of Massachusetts going to Texas? The red states receive far, far more in Federal funding, for example, than do the blue, and everyone in the US benefits from a more evenly-distributed economic matrix.

      • Sorta on the weak side with the response about Greece. The assertation is made, and greece is the evidence. At this point, what is in question is “did Greece’s overwhelmin social programs cause it’s economic troubles”. If I’m wrong, that’s for my opponent to prove. Not the other way around. As for proving it wrong, you would have to do one of the following: a: show Greece is not having any unusual problems, or b: there is another explanation for it. As for “B”, most every economic article I’ve read holds that in this case, A is being caused by B.

        As for Red states receiving more, and that “everyone” benefits – that’s open to opinion. For the man who contributes one plate of food, but is allowed to eat three plates, yes, he will say the economic redistribution is working. For the man in blue, he has to pay for his one plate,plus the other two plates Red ate. I’m sure he would say economic redistribution is not working. So – “everyone”. no.

        But then again…. economic redistribution was never about “Fair”.

        Sorry Mike – any waya person tries to explain it, there is always one whogainsat the expense of the other. And remember, whatever argument used,can also be applied to thearmed robber who “gains” at the expense of the store owner.


  3. The assertation is made, and greece is the evidence.

    It’s a circular argument:

    You’ve made the assertion based on a circular argument rather than a sound evidentiary basis – the premise of your argument is that weak economic conditions in Greece are caused by the social programmes, and you attempt to evidence it by pointing to the weakness of the economy. Sorry, no dice – petitio principii doesn’t fly.

    So – “everyone”. no.

    A rising tide lifts all boats…

    But then again…. economic redistribution was never about “Fair”.

    Yeah, I’m sure Rush told you so… Economic redistribution, however you slice it, is classically associated with the attempt to level the socio-economic playing field, to make sure that power in the form of economics is not the deciding factor in the most basic and fundamental parts of life.

    Sorry Mike – any way�a person tries to explain it, there is always one who�gains�at the expense of the other.� And remember, whatever argument used,�can also be applied to the�armed robber who “gains” at the expense of the store owner.

    It’s a false equivalence – nobody is forced to participate in society at gunpoint and everyone benefits from the overall good. Yes, one person may pay more in taxes, but he gets to call upon police, use public roads, make use of the giant property protection scheme which is the armed forces, and he can ring the fire brigade when his house is about to go up in flames – and more to the point, if his fortune vanishes overnight in some disaster, while his taxes diminish, his right to call upon public services does not.

    Taxation and noblesse oblige are not theft – they’re rent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: