[lbo-talk] IMF under siege!

DoreneFC at aol.com DoreneFC at aol.com
Thu Apr 1 16:55:36 PST 2004


And we who favor social development, who support local control over countries' antional economic development, or who are just wary of the IMF should be alarmed why?

And should we be more concerned about excluding infrastructure than social spending? Should we be in favor of the idea but only for social spending???

DoreneC

In a message dated 4/1/2004 4:29:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, dhenwood at panix.com writes:


> Subj: [lbo-talk] IMF under siege!
> Date: 4/1/2004 4:29:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
> From: dhenwood at panix.com
> Reply-to: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Sent from the Internet
>
>
>
> <http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_derosa&
> sid=aOGWO5LS9bWg>
>
> Argentina and Brazil Join Forces to Tame the IMF: David DeRosa
>
> March 26 (Bloomberg) -- In yet another affront to the authority of
> the International Monetary Fund, Argentina and Brazil have agreed to
> stand as one in future negotiations over loan conditions.
>
> The Fund is being eviscerated by two of the very countries it has
> staked its reputation on when it rescued them from financial collapse.
>
> In effect, Brazil and Argentina are acting as if they have an
> entitlement to borrow billions of dollars from the IMF on terms of
> their choosing.
>
> Earlier this month, Argentina successfully negotiated a $3.1 billion
> loan disbursement by threatening not to make a loan service payment
> of the same size to the Fund. The Fund gave in; Argentina made the
> payment and the Fund promptly agreed to return the billions to
> Argentina.
>
> What Argentina learned from that episode is that the IMF is a
> low-pain-threshold creditor when it comes to its clients threatening
> it with default. This happens when the lender of last resort, the
> IMF, is afraid of its own shadow.
>
> Now Argentina is trying to gain a tactical advantage over the IMF by
> combining forces with Brazil.
>
> Seeking Exclusion
>
> Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Argentine President
> Nestor Kirchner present their agreement as a means to persuade the
> IMF to free up cash and bolster growth in their countries, South
> America's two largest economies. They want the IMF to exclude such
> projects as road building, power plants and other infrastructure from
> spending limits tied to IMF financing.
>
> Last month Lula had the temerity to hit U.S. President George W. Bush
> with this idea to exclude infrastructure from the primary surplus.
>
> Brazil's $14.8 billion IMF package requires it to maintain a primary
> surplus, or budget surplus equal to 4.25 percent of gross domestic
> product.
>
> Argentina's $13.3 billion IMF accord requires it to run a primary
> surplus at least equal to 3 percent of its gross domestic product.
> That calculation excludes government interest payments on debt.
>
> Growth Justification
>
> What Lula and Kirchner want is some wiggle room. Brazil's Foreign
> Minister Celso Amorim, speaking after Lula and Kirchner met in Rio de
> Janeiro on March 16, summed up the case: ``We emphasize the
> importance that during the negotiations with the IMF, we jointly
> defend that the primary surplus takes into account the needs for
> growth.''
>
> Alberto Fernandez, Kirchner's cabinet chief, said the two countries
> plan to continue to negotiate debt accords with the IMF separately.
>
> Be that as it may, what Brazil and Argentina really want is a license
> to spend billions of dollars in full view of the IMF under the
> justification that it's good for growth. Maybe it is, though history
> shows that large government-sponsored infrastructure projects are
> riddled with fat, the very thing on which corruption feeds.
>
> Another rationalization came from Eduardo Suplicy, a senator from
> Lula's Workers' Party, who claimed the IMF's conditions ``discourage
> countries to invest in social programs.''
>
> The reality is that there will be no limit to what some politicians
> will want to classify as acceptable exceptions to the budget surplus
> rule. Any excuse will do, growth, social programs, you name it.
>
> Debtors United
>
> It should alarm the IMF that two of its biggest client states think
> they can join together to fight for a redefinition of the terms of
> their loan packages.
>
> Whether the new partnership gives the combination of Brazil and
> Argentina actual power over the IMF is uncertain. Yet the symbolism
> speaks of how little respect either country has for the Fund.
>
> What's next? Perhaps a union of Latin American IMF clients? So if
> Uruguay, for example, needs a loan, the Fund has to sit down with
> several nations, such as Brazil and Argentina, to work out the terms?
>
> Or maybe all the emerging markets nations will band together, and the
> IMF will have to check with all of them before it can work out a loan
> package with economic conditions.
>
> The very concept of debtor nations combining forces against the Fund
> is completely antithetical to the IMF having a role in straightening
> out the financial and economic affairs of bankrupt countries.
>
> Before this goes any further, the IMF should put Brazil and Argentina
> in their respective places. If it doesn't begin to assert authority
> now, it never may get the chance to do so down the road.
>
> --
>
> David DeRosa , president of DeRosa Research &Trading, is an adjunct
> finance professor at the Yale School of Management and the author of
> "In Defense of Free Capital Markets." The opinions expressed are his
> own.
>
> To contact the writer of this column:
> David DeRosa in New Canaan, Connecticut, at dderosa at bloomberg.net.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040401/81ed3dca/attachment.htm>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list