Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
...the central bank had given to the Greek parties a list called the Lagarde list (for Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF)...

...So, in effect, the troika--not the troika, the finance ministers, really, are backing the tax dodgers and the crooks in Greece that SYRIZA is trying to move against, whereas the IMF is actually, for once, taking a softer position towards the whole thing...

To clear up his misunderstanding: when the Lagarde list was born in 2010, Lagarde was still the finance minister of France, not yet the head of the IMF. So the list wasn't a sign of the IMF's softness at all; and, as told in the Die Zeit article discussed upthread, it was just the IMF's bureaucrats who advised the Greek government against bringing charges against the tax cheats.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Feb 26th, 2015 at 05:38:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I found he myth of "good" IMF perplexing anyway. They also take much higher interest rates.
by IM on Thu Feb 26th, 2015 at 06:41:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the reason is that its research division produces papers showing that the IMF's policies can not achieve its stated goals. That this had no influence on the policies is something that is easily missed.
by generic on Thu Feb 26th, 2015 at 06:45:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another reason is that the EU (ECB, Council, Commission) public discussion focused on debt service and budget cuts rather than the substance of the "reforms" enforced at gunpoint, and not just the IMF research division but the IMF top leadership was more flexible on that. Then again, Poul Thomsen and his fellow IMF bureaucrats would never have been able to exert the level of influence they have without the perpetuation of the depression by the austerians, so making the IMF worse than the others is wrong too.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Feb 26th, 2015 at 07:03:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another reason is that the EU (ECB, Council, Commission) public discussion focused on debt service and budget cuts rather than the substance of the "reforms" enforced at gunpoint, and not just the IMF research division but the IMF top leadership was more flexible on that.

This may be the reason why IMF was left out. Finance ministers fear debt cuts because they don't want to sell them to voters while compromizing on "reforms" won't cost them anything. Not having IMF in let them choose whether to compromize on debt or on reforms.

by Jute on Thu Feb 26th, 2015 at 11:43:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series