Good day all. Last week I wrote about the head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde leaving Europe just before she was convicted for assorted crimes in her native France. She flew to Washington DC to meet with the board of the IMF.
If you were expecting her to be “Invited to spend more time with her family” by the Board of Directors of the IMF, you would be wrong. Instead, she has the “Full support” of the IMF board. Here are the details from Bloomberg Markets:
The International Monetary Fund’s executive board caught a glimpse this week of what life might be like in the wilderness of a rapidly shifting world order. It didn’t take them long to slam the door.
Christine Lagarde’s conviction on Monday of negligence in a French court cast uncertainty over her ability to continue as the IMF’s managing director. Within hours of the judgment, in which she escaped any punishment, the fund’s 24-member executive board put to rest any speculation that she might have to resign, praising her “outstanding leadership” and the “wide respect” she commands around the world.
The IMF came into being at the close of World War II. It was part of the big United Nations deal that the Allied powers, led by the United States put in place to, theoretically, prevent World War III. The IMF was created to, for lack of a better term, level the playing field among the nations when it came to finance and trade. According to Wikipedia:
Upon the founding of the IMF, its three primary functions were: to oversee the fixed exchange rate arrangements between countries, thus helping national governments manage their exchange rates and allowing these governments to prioritise economic growth, and to provide short-term capital to aid the balance of payments. This assistance was meant to prevent the spread of international economic crises. The IMF was also intended to help mend the pieces of the international economy after the Great Depression and World War II. As well, to provide capital investments for economic growth and projects such as infrastructure.
That was the theory. The reality has been somewhat different. I’m not going into the long list of disasters caused by the IMF, that is several large books all by itself. Basically, the IMF has been run by elitists with ties to the various global banks and they have used their “authority” to protect the banks, usually at the expense of small nations or individuals, Many well educated people are wondering why we still support this corrupt organization.
But the episode, (Lagarde’s conviction), raises the question of how the IMF would select a leader at a time when traditional alliances are fraying among developed economies and popular opposition is growing to the lopsided benefits of globalization.
Those lopsided benefits have been to the Progressive Elites, primarily in Europe, but also, to some extent, the United States and Asia. People have started seeing and understanding that the current idea of Globalization is actually detrimental to them. The results of this have led to the passing of the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump. It’s also safe to say, we haven’t seen the end of these “rebellions” by the “Plebes”, yet.
One of the biggest wild cards would be how the IMF’s role is viewed by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who campaigned on a promise to put America’s economy first and look past traditional U.S. allies in Europe toward warmer relations with Russia.
“It’s anybody’s guess who the next occupant of the White House would pick,” said Martin Edwards, an international relations professor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey. “They could pick someone who wants to downsize the organization.”
Oh I think it’s worse than that, at least from the Progressive Elitist point of view. President Trump might just put someone in there who will “go through the books” and see what the real story may be, if any.
Since it was conceived in 1944 to help oversee the global monetary system, the IMF has always been led by a European. The World Bank, a sister organization created to finance Europe’s reconstruction after the war, has always been led by an American. It’s a postwar arrangement that emerging markets have started to take umbrage with.
Mostly due to the fact that these organizations have been seen as nothing more then looters of the worst sort. Think the old Spanish Empire and how rapacious they were, compared to the old British Empire. The British actually built things in their “Colonies” while the Spanish basically plundered their way across the New World. That’s how the “Emerging Markets” see the IMF and World Bank, as no better than the Spanish Conquistadors, without the genocide and Spanish Inquisition.
Their missions have since evolved, with the IMF now acting as the world’s lender of last resort and the World Bank bankrolling development from Africa to China.
But the leadership pact between the U.S. and Europe has survived, cementing the two institutions as instruments of Western economic power.
It isn’t “Western Power” that these organizations represent, it’s actually the financial elites, such as George Soros and Warren Buffett, that they really represent.
A break from that tradition would be a significant development, said George Saravelos, global co-head of currency research at Deutsche Bank AG.
The IMF plays a “very material” role in Europe through the institution’s involvement in Greece’s financing plans, he said.
How’s that going for you by the way? The last I heard, the Greek people were looking to borrow the American tradition of tar, feathers, rope, IMF employee, some assembly required. As I recall, the Greeks were making noises about ditching the Euro and returning to their Drachma, and repudiating all the loans from the IMF/World bank. To be honest, I haven’t paid any more attention to it of late. (I do know someone who lives for this sort of thing and he may chime in)
“If the appointment were to move away from Europe, or the Trump administration were to signal a break from that policy, it would raise questions about the role of the IMF in Europe’s crisis-fighting approach,” Saravelos said in an interview.
Crisis fighting? More like Crisis Causing if you ask me numbnuts. The article goes on to explain how Lagarde became the current managing director of the IMF. Basically, the kleptocrats from the “Emerging Markets” couldn’t set aside their differences, (Basically each wanting the whole pie, and not wanting to share in the spoils), which allowed the Europeans to put their preferred kleptocrat in place. The problem is, she then went and got herself convicted, and this has opened up a whole new can of worms for the European Elite and the bankers they really represent. Now the Emerging Markets might just get their act together.
A non-traditional managing director would satisfy the desire of emerging markets such as China and India to scale back what they perceive as the West’s outsize influence at the institution. At the same time, it would tilt the delicate balance of power among the IMF’s 189 member nations in ways that are difficult to predict.
I think we can look at the United Nations to see what the end result will be. Looting on a scale not seen since the Roman Empire, and it would be the Europeans primarily who would be taking it in the shorts. Worst case scenario, (from the Progressive Elite’s point of view), would be the United States saying “See ya!” and pulling out of the IMF and World Bank.
[youtuber youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVrEwCa8nSA’]
Which is why some aren’t ruling out the safest option of all: a third term for the managing director, once Lagarde’s second mandate expires in 2021.
“There might be a desire to just keep her there,” said Seton Hall’s Edwards.
Talk about a group of people who “Don’t get it!” For the last two years, the “Ruling Elites” have been in full Marie “Let them eat cake” Antoinette mode with regards to what the general population is thinking. In the old days, they could control the flow of information through their pet news organizations. With the rise of the Internet, that model has gone the way of the Dodo bird.
People are looking for their own sources of information, and you have groups like “Anonymous” and Wikileaks hacking into confidential files and posting them where anyone can see them. It was the DNC’s and John Podesta’s email’s ending up on Wikileaks which played a part in Felonia von Pantsuit’s surprise loss November 8th.
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created 70 years ago in the aftermath of a global war. What good they may have done in the past has long since passed, and now they are being seen by more and more people as being a true threat to their livelihoods. It may be time to phase these two entities out entirely, and President Trump may be the one to start the process. The first step? Denying Christine Lagarde a visa and booting her out of the United States. She is a convicted criminal after all and Trump has said they all need to go.
Thatisall
~The Angry Webmaster~
[yasr_visitor_votes size=”large”]
