Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
zugzwang

Even The Imf Is Starting To Doubt The Washington Consensus

Recommended Posts

Free markets incapable of self-regulation or of delivering optimal economic outcomes?

Mirabile dictu! Whatever next?

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/even-imf-starting-think-inequality-104311882.html

Some of the most senior economists within the International Monetary Fund — often dubbed the "central bank's central bank" — are beginning to question parts of the neoliberal consensus that has dominated economic thinking for the past three decades.

In an article published by the fund this week, economists Jonathan Ostry, Prakash Loungani, and Davide Furceri argue that they see a growing movement against some of the principles of neoliberalism, and believe that two key areas of neoliberalism — namely the free movement of capital across borders, and the enforcement of austerity measures by global governments — are starting to hinder, rather than help the world.

Here's an extract from the article (emphasis ours):

There is much to cheer in the neoliberal agenda. The expansion of global trade has rescued millions from abject poverty. Foreign direct investment has often been a way to transfer technology and know-how to developing economies. Privatization of state-owned enterprises has in many instances led to more efficient provision of services and lowered the fiscal burden on governments.­

However, there are aspects of the neoliberal agenda [austerity and capital liberalisation] that have not delivered as expected.

The post goes on to say that: "An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions." Ostry, Loungani, and Furceri's "disquieting conclusions" are as follows:

  1. It is pretty hard to actually establish, "when looking at a broad group of countries" whether neoliberal policies have actually helped growth.
  2. The increase in inequality is "prominent".
  3. Increased inequality caused by specific parts of neoliberalism "hurts the level and sustainability of growth."

Here's more from the report (emphasis ours):

Since both openness and austerity are associated with increasing income inequality, this distributional effect sets up an adverse feedback loop. The increase in inequality engendered by financial openness and austerity might itself undercut growth, the very thing that the neoliberal agenda is intent on boosting. There is now strong evidence that inequality can significantly lower both the level and the durability of growth.

The evidence of the economic damage from inequality suggests that policymakers should be more open to redistribution than they are. Of course, apart from redistribution, policies could be designed to mitigate some of the impacts in advance—for instance, through increased spending on education and training, which expands equality of opportunity (so-called predistribution policies). And fiscal consolidation strategies—when they are needed—could be designed to minimize the adverse impact on low-income groups.

Since the late 1980s and the so-called Washington Consensus, neoliberalism — essentially the idea that free trade, open markets, privatisation, deregulation, and reductions in government spending designed to increase the role of the private sector are the best ways to boost growth — has predominated in the thinking of the world's biggest economies and international organisations like the IMF, and the World Bank. However since the 2008 financial crisis, there has been a groundswell of opinion in both economic and political circles to suggest that the neoliberal consensus is not the right way forward for the world.

As one of the report's authors, Ostry, put it in an interview with the Financial Times after the article's publication: "There are a lot of people thinking the same thing at this point, that basically some aspects of the neoliberal agenda probably need a rethink," adding "The crisis said: 'The way we’ve been thinking can’t be right'."

Clearly, one article by three economists inside the IMF doesn't suggest that the fund is about to totally shun neoliberalism and abandon its commitment to the Washington Consensus — in fact, earlier this week, deputy managing director David Lipton gave a speech defending the values of globalisation, and calling protectionism "self-defeating." It does, however, throw up an interesting insight into divisions developing within the IMF about the future of global economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They fcked that quote.

BIS is the central bankers central bank.

IMF is just a collection of technocrats (economists) shoved out of a country to stop them fcking it up with their bright ideas.

Mind you, the IMF is not so dumb as to allow Gordie anywhere near it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"argue that they see a growing movement against some of the principles of neoliberalism, and believe that two key areas of neoliberalism — namely the free movement of capital across borders, and the enforcement of austerity measures by global governments — are starting to hinder, rather than help the world."

Just try moving capital across borders, you will be deluged with red tape and then probably blocked. Just try getting a sizeable amount of your own cash out of a bank and then climbing on a plane.

I don't know what these guys have been smoking , but they should try real free markets. Bitcoins will ruin their day. Bring it on.

Neoliberals = Keynesian Fascists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"argue that they see a growing movement against some of the principles of neoliberalism, and believe that two key areas of neoliberalism — namely the free movement of capital across borders, and the enforcement of austerity measures by global governments — are starting to hinder, rather than help the world themselves."

and the BIS is the "central bank's central bank" - the BIS directors are all central bankers but they aren't quite so prevalent in running the IMF.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/central-bankers-on-negative-interest-rates/

The Bank for International Settlements – dubbed the central bankers’ central bank – has warned about the potential consequences of negative interest rates.

Of course they all just make it up as they go along they are so inept and self serving.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   26 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.