[Quinny]

Just listening to Christine Lagarde Chair of IMF on BBC world news! She is addressing an audience at the Guild hall in London for this years Richard Dimbleby lecture.

She is criticising $2 trillion Energy subsidies, Inequality, excess wealth, excess growth, advocating re-distribution of wealth, emphasing environmental issues and climate change. Criticising the lowering of taxes for corporations to attract jobs against neighbours.

Preaching co-operation as the only way forward.

If I was still in politics I would agree with almost everything she said!

[kiwichick]

yes ... one smart lady

[rollin]

Isn't the prime mandate of the IMF to foster economic growth?
Criticizing excess growth, excess wealth and advocating redistribution of wealth sounds great on the surface but what does it really mean? I am a bit skeptical of the intent and the language used. Excess growth does not mean stop growth, not sure what she would mean by that.

Christine Lagarde Chair of IMF on BBC January 14,2014
The head of the International Monetary Fund has warned about the risks to global economic recovery of deflation.
Christine Lagarde said that "optimism is in the air" about growth, but the recovery is still "fragile"."
If inflation is the genie, then deflation is the ogre that must be fought decisively," she said in a speech in Washington.

Earlier, the World Bank said that the global economy was at a "turning point" but "remained vulnerable".

"We see rising risks of deflation, which could prove disastrous for the recovery," Ms Lagarde said at the National Press.

full article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25752936

Since the expected deflation of the great recession never occurred, why be so afraid of deflation, unless your a bankster? Deflation resets costs back to a realistic levels after inflation and over-investment raise them beyond reality. Without deflation we have constant inflation. When will the banksters be happy, when the dollar is worth 1 penny (now it's about 3 cents)?
I don't think any banker or banking system understands limits to growth, natural constraints and how to handle them. All they see is their potential demise and must keep stirring the pot. By redistributing wealth not only does the IMF continue to secure it's position, but they are hoping to start large parts of the undeveloped world down the same track as the developing ones. Just keep eating up the world until it breaks down completely.

A recipe for certain disaster.
I do agree with the statement about 2 trillion in energy subsidies, with certain reservations. Those energy subsidies keep us tied into the fossil fuel system and the now false-green bio-renewables system. As long as civilization is tied to an energy system that depends upon new discovery of finite energy sources and increased pricing to drive technology to obtain these sources, civilization will always be treading the edge of collapse and eventually will collapse.
Using a fully discovered, easily obtainable energy source system is the only key to a secure longevity in an energy driven civilization. That is where the subsidies should be placed.

As you can see, I am highly skeptical of anyone pushing BAU, no matter how egalitarian and humanitarian the terms are that surround it. In the long run (not that long) it will cause more pain, suffering, destruction and death than can be imagined.

[ROCKMAN]

Rollin - Always amazing how folks will take one collection of WORDS to ignore a lifetime of actions. Even offsetting another set of WORDS offered just a month ago:

"International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde Thursday said central banks in advanced economies such as the U.S. and Europe should keep their easy-money spigots open amid threats to global growth. “Despite their stronger performance recently, the risks of stagnation and deflation continue to loom large,” IMF’s managing director said in a Project Syndicate op-ed. “Central banks should return to more conventional monetary policies only when robust growth is firmly rooted,” she said. Ms. Lagarde’s warnings come despite the IMF’s plans to revise upward its global growth projections in its World Economic Outlook update due out January 21st. The fund cut its forecast for global growth in October to 3.6%, its sixth consecutive downgrade.

IOW: For Dog's sake do everything possible to maintain BAU. So, as usual, better to judge by actions instead of words.

[Subjectivist]

Politicians of every stripe say what they think they need to say to get what they want. If our government wants things couched interms like redistribution and fairness then savvy politicians will adopt those terms and will enact them just as far as they have too to get what they really want.

[rollin]

Rockman said:

Rollin - Always amazing how folks will take one collection of WORDS to ignore a lifetime of actions. Even offsetting another set of WORDS offered just a month ago:

Rockman, not sure I am getting the meaning of your post. Are you agreeing with my post since I caught her essentially revealing her real strategy? Could you make that one a little clearer please?

[ROCKMAN]

Rollin - I should have been more blunt. You say your skeptical. I'm not...I have no doubt she's just putting out PR that will have no bearing on what the IMF will do.

[Plantagenet]

Christine Lagarde has spent her time in office bailing out the EU banks and wealthy EU bankers.

Of course she's not going to give speeches about her job bailing out wealthy bankers----she's going to say nice sounding things about helping average people so the audience will clap at her speech and other people who aren't very well informed about what she actually does will think she's a nice person who deeply cares about the welfare of the average person.

What people do is more important then what they say.

[Quinny]

I agree with all the above responses, but I have never heard a world leader even talk about switching the focus to re-distribution away from growth. Even leaders from the 'left' have always focussed on growth as a way of improving the lot of the working class.

We recently had a thread on the Obama state of the union speech where someone posted what they would have wanted him to say. I agree that actions speak louder than words, but the pen is also mightier than the sword and to voice such ideas in her position is IMHO pretty damn radical.

This wasn't an election speech she was talking to TPBTPTB at the Guild Hall in London.

If anyone has any example of a similar speech being made by someone in her position I'd be interested to know.

[Newfie]

Quin,

I agree, it's a start. So the ice has been broken.

Let's see what, if anything, ensues.

[Sixstrings]

It sounds good, but..

if the IMF goes for "re-distribution" then we're just going to wind up with a lot of bad loans. There's enough debt on the books as it is, that can't ever be paid back -- if you drop growth from the equation then you can't have any more debt nor an IMF.

[Plantagenet]

If anyone has any example of a similar speech being made by someone in her position I'd be interested to know.

Thats easy. Just last week the Congressional Budget Office in the US released their latest projections of economic growth, and predicted US GDP growth would be minimal for the next 10 years. The director was questioned and repeated the finding. The US CBO---perhaps the premier economic forecasting group in the US--- first gave the same bleak forecast that Lagarde is now repeating.

The cause of the global slowdown remains contentious, but I would argue that the global economy can't grow as efficiently as in the past since oil production from conventional sources peaked ca. 2005 and oil prices jumped up to $100+/barrel. Chances are even the bleak forecasts of Lagarde and the CBO are too optimistic----when oil prices spike again we'll see another global economic collapse just as the global economy collapsed in 2009 after the 2008 oil price spike.

[Quinny]

I've heard the establishment make negative speeches before, but did the director in question speak out for progressive taxation, more equality, womens rights, increasing corporate taxation etc etc? Doubt it very much.

If anyone has any example of a similar speech being made by someone in her position I'd be interested to know.

Thats easy. Just last week the Congressional Budget Office in the US released their latest projections of economic growth, and predicted US GDP growth would be minimal for the next 10 years. The director was questioned and repeated the finding. The US CBO---perhaps the premier economic forecasting group in the US--- first gave the same bleak forecast that Lagarde is now repeating.

The cause of the global slowdown remains contentious, but I would argue that the global economy can't grow as efficiently as in the past since oil production from conventional sources peaked ca. 2005 and oil prices jumped up to $100+/barrel. Chances are even the bleak forecasts of Lagarde and the CBO are too optimistic----when oil prices spike again we'll see another global economic collapse just as the global economy collapsed in 2009 after the 2008 oil price spike.

[cipi604]

Don't look at what they say. Look at what they do.

[Plantagenet]

Lagarde and the IMF are the chief proponents of austerity. The austerity and budget cuts and job losses and economic pain in Greece are an example of IMF policies.

If you like budget cuts, pension cuts, job reductions and layoffs, higher taxes, bank bailouts, etc. etc. then you're going to be a big fan of Lagarde.


Lagarde speak with forked tongue (cartoon about Lagarde and Greek austerity)

[ROCKMAN]

P - Exactly. When the "redistribution" was touted above I assume the thought assumed from the not so needy to the needy. That's not the only cash flow model of redistribution. That has not been the history of the IMF if you dig into the details.

[Quinny]

As I said - I agree actions speak louder than words and I am no supporter of the IMF and in particular austerity measures when unequally applied. Has anyone listened to the Dimbleby lecture, if you do I think you might agree with my opinion that her words are more radical than I have heard from any member of the establishment.

The redistribution she spoke of was to correct inequality. I am well aware of the IMF's position, and do not support it. The point I am making is that she (who might well be on her way out) made a speech advocating more radical change than I have heard put forward by politicians of all hues.

This was not a party political speech to gain votes. If anything her audience were uncomfortable with many of the points she was making.

[Newfie]

Once in a while ind like to hear some economist say...

"It's not that we have too few jobs, we have too many people."



Give her a break and wait to see what happens. Just opening the discussion is a good thing.

You know, the elephant in the room.

[Quinny]

What it also indicates is that the establishment is well aware of PO and are considering 'solutions'.

Let's put it this way by considering Kubler-Ross. If world leaders are aware of the predicament we are in then most are in Denial or at best Angry it seemed very much to me she's at the Bargaining stage. As someone who is in effect a banker it was interesting to say the least. She ends with a tribute to JMK which I know many will hate, but to be fair she highlighted the point that growth is not the answer. Please watch if you can. I can't re-watch because I-player won't work here.

[americandream]

@ Quinny

She's voicing something new which is interesting. The underlying forces that are driving capiotalism to the cliff edge will objectively give rise to adaptation and cultural change. Is she the start of this process, as a public figure. Is this different from the bogus redistribution of the social democrats? Time will tell.