This is from an article published by the IMF this week and written by three of its in house economists:
[T]here are aspects of the neoliberal agenda that have not delivered as expected. Our assessment of the agenda is confined to the effects of two policies: removing restrictions on the movement of capital across a country's borders (so-called capital account liberalization); and fiscal consolidation, sometimes called “austerity,” which is shorthand for policies to reduce fiscal deficits and debt levels. An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions:
-The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries.
-The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.
-Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.
So, capital account liberalisation - which spawned a massive increase in the use of tax havens, amongst other things - and austerity do, between them increase ineuqality without delivering growth. Or to put it another way, the IMF may now be realising that it has been involved in a massive exercise in redistributing wealth upwards in society.
Is this change in heart real? I think it may be. I was in DC this week, admittedly next door to the IMF at the World Bank, but there were IMF people present. And what was the conference called? It was 'Winning the Tax Wars'. And who was undertaking that war? Tax havens, their users and those who provide services to them.
Was such a conference title imaginable in such a place only three years ago? I suggest not.
The appreciation that neoliberalism is not just failing but has failed is growing, and I welcome that.
Now we need the alternative.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
well spotted, it does sound encouraging,
The IMF was created to pander to the whims of private financial capital and has always been a key instrument in the neoliberal agenda. So an acceptance they may have got it wrong is interesting to say the least, but I do not doubt in any way that they are still being pulled by the same puppeteers strings.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or even a half brained economist, to realise that if you allow the free flow of capital from developed economies with decades of social and enviromental protections built into their laws, to undeveloped regions with no such regulations allowing virtually slave labour and unlimited pollution – the end result for people and the planet is going to be a disaster.
The fact that the wealth generated by the hard work of the real entrepreneurs and labourers in the developed nations has flowed out of those countries, devastating much of their own industry, for the sole purpose of enriching the private owners of those financial surpluses through their investments in other nations – should hardly come as a surprise to the brainy people at the IMF.
The fact that the vast majority of the people of the undeveloped countries are little better now than when their countries were seen only as the “resource basket” of the world to be plundered at will by western corporations and states – should be no surprise to anyone either.
The IMF were always part of the neoliberal private financial capitalist plan (and still are). The fact it is going so badly wrong means we should actually ignore everything they say in future, until they put their cards on the table and declare in who’s interests they are really working.
Or better still, the IMF should change its allegiance and start working for the sustainable future of all people and the planet!
I dispute the reason for the creation of the IMF
That was not what Keynes intended
It may have been what happened but that was because of ideological capture
Ideology can be changed
‘That was not what Keynes intended’ -true, but his plans were wrecked almost immediately in 1944-it wasn’t as if there was a slow transition to what Ernst Wolff called ‘Pillaging the World’ in this history of the IMF-the dominance of the dollar was ‘baked in.’ The rest is the history of an organisation intent on rapine and the raising of the rentier to a position of supremacy. Let’s hope Greece is the last manifestation of these World Parasites.
I do not dispute that the corruption began quite quickly
I agree that Keynes plans were hijacked, but this was probably before he even got to Bretton woods as the Americans wanted nothing of European socialist ideology in their new world order, not even some of Keynes more liberal ideas like a common global currency.
I understand that the IMF used to be a more useful organisation, producing good stats.
The IMF was not Keynes intention at all. In US-British negotiations during WWII planning the post-war international financial system, Keynes pushed for an International Clearing Union. The ICU was a revolutionary idea. It would have encouraged stabilisation and balance of international trade flows by forcing countries to reduce both trade deficits and surpluses.
Unfortunately, as Britain was massively indebted to the US and the junior partner in the alliance, it had little bargaining power. As the world’s largest creditor nation, the US would not contemplate the idea.
Instead Britain was forced to go along with the ideas of Harry Dexter White, who headed the American delegation – the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (later part of the World Bank). These were established at the heavily stage-managed Bretton Woods Conference. Keynes had some influence over the design of these institutions (particularly the IBRD) but it would be quite wrong to think that they were what he intended.
I read about this in a biography of Keynes, cannot remember which one I’m sorry to say.
Exactly!
Bancor and an ICU are concepts whose time may soon come
Agreed
Monbiots article on this is worth a read
Keynes is innocent: the toxic spawn of Bretton Woods was no plan of his
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/18/lord-keynes-international-monetary-fund
*May* now be realising?
“…the IMF may now be realising that it has been involved in a massive exercise in redistributing wealth upwards in society”.
I have mentioned that Osborne’s agenda as Chancellor is to maximise the concentration of wealth, and all else is subservient to that aim.
“Who could possibly want that?”, we ask: some with disbelief, others with a genuine interest in finding ways of defeating their agenda; and some ask in the hope of obscuring the truth with trivialisation.
Neoliberalism is a useful framework of policies and political tactics to facilitate that aim: too useful, and too effective, and if the word ‘neoliberalism’ fell out of use tomorrow, you can be certain that the agenda will remain in effect
Richard,
The IMF may be waking up to the fact that while Cameron and Osborne have been calling their economic policy austerity, it isn’t really.
I would think of austerity as cutting spending & increasing taxes, in order to raise more money to reduce Govt debt. And I suspect that is what the average man in the street would agree with.
But since 2010, while public services have been slashed, benefits cut and VAT increased, corporation tax has been slashed, the top rate of income tax cut and inheritance tax cut.
This isn’t proper austerity – if it was then these taxes would have been raised, not cut.
Cameron and Osborne are really transferring money from poor to rich, while disguising it as austerity with slogans like “we’re all in this together” and “those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden”. And they’ve been very effective at covering up what they’re really doing.
According to James Meadway yesterday the reason Osborne is so intent on ‘clearing the debt’ his way is in order to have a buffer against the next crisis.
James may well be right
This is a theory I share with him
Indeed, it’s one he’s virtually said out loud himself
What sort of ‘buffer’. Bailouts create new money why would a buffer be needed?
Well after 6 years, Osborne has failed miserably to create any meaningful buffer despite all the pain and hardship he has inflicted on those least able to bear it and who share no responsibility for the financial mess that private financial capitalism has inflicted upon them.
Time for systemic financial change not tinkering with a knackered engine anymore!
And here you probably summarise the stupidity of the current Conservative government applying the tool of income-flow analysis to government affairs when it should be applying the tool of money-flow analysis for the economy as a whole.
Can you elaborate? Buffer for whom? Sounds like James’ was endorsing??? Is that right?
Please could you explain what exactly a “buffer” is, in consideration of the fact the the UK has its own sovereign fiat currency and can create money via the BoE at will.
There is no need for a “buffer”, indeed it is difficult to imagine exactly how and where such a “buffer” would be created.
Money is effectively destroyed when taxes are paid, it’s not saved in some gigantic gold piggy bank in the basement of the Treasury, like some would have you believe.
While what you’re saying is right in a sense – that raising taxes can be austere, too – you can’t say we aren’t experiencing austerity by virtue of the fact that taxes aren’t being raised. What makes fiscal policy austere is whether or not it expands or contracts the public deficit; and that’s definitely what’s broadly happening here.
This is the first time that the IMF, in anything I have read of them, have used the term ‘neo-liberal agenda’, have you seen the actual term being used before, Richard? I think this is highly significant as, although there have been ‘muted’ criticisms from some IMF in house people, this seems more explicit than ever.
I despise the IMF and would ascribe this mini-crescendo of a critique (gradually emerging in the last few years) of what has been happening economically to a desire to ‘hedge their bets’ and cover themselves from the opprobrium that could rain down on them (and that they fully deserve) when the faecal matter hits the fan. In short this is an attempt ti insure themselves against the charge of total irrelevance and calls for the monster the IMF is to be scrapped along with the ghastly ‘I’ve- got- my- money back’ Lagarde.’
Greece ruined/Portugal, Ireland, Latvia de-populated/’Internal devaluation’ creating nearly three months of protests in France and now Belgium in conduction with the rise of the rite adn sod-all growth to show for all this vast suffering.
Here’s an extract from a recent IMF ‘Debt Sustainability’ report (quoted by Bill Mitchell in a recent blog):
‘even if Greece through a heroic effort could temporarily reach a surplus close to 31â„2 percent of GDP, few countries have managed to reach and sustain such high levels of primary balances for a decade or more, and it is highly unlikely that Greece can do so … and projections suggesting that unemployment will remain at double digits for several decades.’
and goes on:
‘At the same time, Greece will continue to struggle with high unemployment rates for decades to come. Its current unemployment rate is around 25 percent, the highest in the OECD, and, after seven years of recession, its structural component is estimated at around 20 percent. Consequently, it will take significant time for unemployment to come down. Staff expects it to reach 18 percent by 2022, 12 percent by 2040, and 6 percent only
by 2060.’
What more evidence do we need that the intellectual cupboard is bare? The IMF should file for intellectual bankruptcy and be declared a toxic, morals-free zone.
These ideologues must have imbibed a huge narcoleptic at the time they imbibed their barren ideology – and now, only now, after years of evidence and the suffering of millions of Greeks on a vast scale they con say: ‘well…um…er..er…umm…er…der…er.. this neoliberal stuff…er…um…er…it might not be ‘working.’
One’s head is in one’s hands (as the Queen might put it).
I can’t say they have never used the term before, but it is extraordinary that they do so
And I know the idea has not crept out into the frontline as yet
Change takes time…..
Agreed-it is extraordinary, when I initially read it I thought you had edited the text and rephrased it using the term! Still, I would, take it at this stage as an attempt to cover themselves as protests and chaos mount-should thees protests fizzle out I suspect we’ll all be back to ‘normal’. In short it’s a PR job rather than in ‘inner revolution.’ I know you try to see the best in everyone, Richard and I admire this (and try to challenge my pessimism) but with the IMF it’s such a stretch.
Stretching is good for you
I agree. This is not the first time the IMF have made noises like this and the song they sing is “we were right then; we are right now; nothing that happens is our fault”. I am tired of hearing it. Whatever they say, and no matter where they are involved, they recommend the same one size fits all rubbish.
They are charlatans with one agenda: to promote their plutocratic rubbish and ensure they retain influence and their pay and privileges.
The sooner they are all sacked the happier we will all be.
I don’t even care if they mean it this time. The damage they have inflicted is indefensible. And they did it knowingly and, if not with malice then with insouciance enthroned.
Well put Fiona -not only ‘insouciance’ but combined with dismissive mockery. Legarde’s words, when Greece paid the first tranche of debt were: ‘I’ve got my money back’ accompanied by a haut couture grin. This must be the cognate of Clinton’s ‘We came, we saw, he died.’
These people are not fit to run a coconut shy, they should be sacked and given community service in order to do something useful for a change.
Nile hit the nail on the head. Whatever the original intention might have been, neoliberalism (such a cosy word) was adopted as a method of achieving greater inequality, with considerable success.This is why Richard’s call for a wealth tax is so important.
Notable IMF statement, but I hope they add a third neolib dimension alongside unrestricted capital flow and austerity that they mention, namely conversion of public provisions into private.
All I would say here is that if this is indeed the beginning of the end then it will be a slow and drawn out one.
Vested interests will fight like mad to keep us occupied with terrorism threats, nationalism and Apps. They will encourage us to fall out with each other and play with out mobile phones.
I was at the dentist last night in the town of Belper, Derbyshire – a fascinating
place – it still has cobbled streets in some places and original artisan houses.
Anyhow, there I was in the waiting room watching a family of four all sitting in silence, each with a mobile phone and in their own little worlds – thumbs moving like crazy of the mini key boards. They never said a word to each for 20 minutes. No debate about BREXIT; no discussion about the state of benefits and austerity.
But I agree that that people in key economic institutions may now at last be questioning the validity of the neo-lib bullshit.
However, only yesterday I took part in a 38 Degrees online petition against the privatisation of the Land Registry. Today the issue of a report on Fracking that is being held back by Cameron & Co.
It is hard to feel hopeful. Very hard. The tide maybe turning – but ‘they’ do seem to be winning – even now.
It’s a very qualified statement about austerity and could merely be a general signalling that maybe things have been pushed as far as they can for now. What should be analysed are all the things that have moved from public to private hands via austerity. Under those terms I’d imagine that austerity has served its purpose rather well.
We do see the odd article that points out how much we pay as interest on national debts. What we don’t see is a breakdown of all the economic rents nations pay on things that were once publicly owned.
Label it neoliberalism if you like but to me it’s just a continuation of enclosure of the commons.
As Chomsky says, neoliberalism is not new and it’s not liberal. ‘Continuation of enclosure of the commons’ works for me… and given the number of US states who have legislated against households saving their own rainwater and from going off grid, generating their own solar electricity, I would say that we are seeing new levels of primary accumulation (or as Marx preferred to call it ‘theft’).
Fined for collecting your own rainwater in the land of the free? Well,well!
Alastair,
“enclosure of the commons” – how true. It is astonishing that, although such enclosure began in the 16th century, with the Reformation being to a very large degree (and I speak as a Christian, as well as a Socialist) the ideological expression of capitalist “rugged individualism”, as opposed to Catholic “we are an interdependent community, and believe in the economy of community”, despite starting then, its real development took place in 18th century Britain (“the clearances” in Scotland, and enclosures in England), in the penumbra of the French Revolution, when one would have expected the British ruling class to have trodden more warily.
That they didn’t do so then, and don’t do so now – for what else other than “enclosure” would the privatisation of the Land Registry be, or what else IS the fact the “boyo” Branson’s VirginCare now run over 50% of allegedly “State” care services – pure capitalist accumulation and “dominant position” quasi-monopoly – is a sign not just of the ruling class’s arrogance, but also of their confidence that the British public WON’T follow the French route of REAL public opposition and resistance, but will adopt their usual “sheeple-like” docility, as a they are led up the garden path to the knacker’s yard!
I despair, and can only hope that the answer to Richard’s question “Are neo-liberalism’s days numbered” is : I damned well hope so – in a very few years, if necessary, but for preference in a very few months, and hopefully ahead of the 2020 General Election, or even n better, by the defeat of this unconscionable travesty of a Government in a General Election before 2020.
‘the British public WON’T follow the French route of REAL public opposition and resistance, but will adopt their usual “sheeple-like” docility, as a they are led up the garden path to the knacker’s yard! ‘
Agree, Andrew, the docility is quite staggering in the UK. We have had radical groups like the Quakers, Levelers, Chartists yet somehow there is an inbuilt awe of wealth and power that never seems to lose its grip here. Maybe it’s a result of the vicious retrenchment of power that took place after the and in fear of the French Revolution spreading and a feeling of Malthusian inferiority. I never quite understand it.
Unfortunately the Left has failed so badly that the protests in France will probably be of advantage to the Right. Le Pen knows the Left have deserted people.
Well if the Tories continue to rip pieces off themselves, the first step on the ladder of change can begin (hopefully in the next few weeks!)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/29/andrew-brigden-conservatives-david-cameron-fractured-eu-debate-election
Yes – I get that – especially when you put into the context of ‘path dependency’ – that this is the way in which power and wealth has ALWAYS done things.
This also underpins the continuity that Picketty went out of his way to illustrate – that really, the longitudinal accumulation of capital by the upper echelons of society has been going on for a long time in human history.
All I would add is that ‘neo-liberalism’ was just a modern version of the provision of an ‘intellectual basis’ from which to justify greed. Also, let us also not forget it is very well organised and proponents are good at net-working and sticking together. So I do see neo-liberalism as something slightly new – it is an old idea accompanied by very modern trans global means of exerting influence and inculcating institutions.
I caught up with a friend the other day with whom I have had big disagreements about current economic policy in the past. She is reading Owen Jones’ book ‘The Establishment’ and is quite angry – more aware than I have ever seen her. We discussed the situation of the ‘counter-narrative’ and revealed her frustration at just how little coverage it gets.
She is also picking up something that I have moaned about here before – that those in the counter-narrative seem to spend too much time disagreeing with each other on small technical details rather than forming together as a cohesive force. This probably is because the individuals who make up the CN are honest, inquisitive types who like to discuss what they have found and enjoy debate.
That to me marks out neo-liberalism as something more than just a continuation – it is a movement of sorts and very successful one at that.
How best to counter it? Well, by using its methods against it?
I have found the recent references to “populism” on either the left or right of politics to be an interesting diversionary tactic away from the “elitism” that has in many ways driven the mainstream agenda of the neo-liberals and their left/right wing sympathisers.
It came up again in todays article about Tony Blair’s interview with Emily Maitlis, and it just strikes me that “populism” is going to become the new fear mongering buzzword for radicals/extremists/dangerous entities that dare to threaten or question the “elitest” establishment dogma we have had to suffer for far too long.
Populism if anything should be the consensus position of the vast majority of the public within a nation, if not it is hardly popular and is more likely to be an extreme position which I personally equate with the “elitests” and “racists” and “corporatists” and “free market capitalists”.
Where is the “dangerous experiment” in listening to ordinary people who make up the vast majority of the population? The only danger I see is to the established elites, of which Tony Blair clearly thinks he is now one of them (rather than one of us which he never really was).
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/tony-blair-corbyn-government-dangerous-experiment
So Tony “Deutsche Bank” Blair deigns to offer his insight and ‘wisdom’ once more. ‘Populism’ seems to me to be a fear of the ‘rabble’ that will destroy the neo-liberal consensus which is the predictable world Blair lives in. It reminds me of that great oligarch worshiper Edmund Burke who thought that if the populace was given what they ‘want they would ‘want everything.’ In fact they don’t want everything, just an affordable house, reliable health care that diesn’t fill the pockets of shareholders, meaningful jobs that offer reasonable security and a cultural life that isn’t monetised to death.
Is that wanting too much?
Clearly there is a choice to be made between a heart transplant for the masses or a lobotomy for the elite! I know where my surgeons knife is aiming 🙂
Yes. I noticed that “populism” is the blairite vague smear of the week. Used by Dugdale and Blair: not a coincidence.
Did the IMF think there was anything to cheer in the neoliberal agenda? For example, had the lives of people in abject poverty got better under the policies.
Read what they said
Yes. As ever they say that there are positives: in this case “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”
Most of that is demonstrably untrue. And it is the measure of how far this is typical guff from IMF: as I said “We were right then and we are right now”. They have not changed: they are protecting their status and privilege. None of this is new. See, for examples
http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=48677750&p=356971224
http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=48677750&p=360246507
http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=48677750&p=372006243
http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=48677750&p=381204565
http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=48677750&p=414361717
I am sorry, but although I note what you say I beg to differ and it is wise to realise it
I am not saying for a moment it is a Damascene conversion
But it is a significant moment
That was never the aim, fooling the rest of was the aim. Trickle-Down and all that.
No need to apoligise Mr Murphy. We will not always agree.
As my links show, this is not a new tale at all. IMF have been making these noises for a long time. It does not change what they do. It does not lead to a rethink of their ideological position. Rather, it seems to me they recognise the people are beginning to challenge the neoliberal certainties and they are positioning themselves to retain their power and prestige when the inevitable rejection of those certainties arrives.
In short they are regrouping through rhetoric but have not altered their intent in any way. They have reason to think that language is effective in masking action, for it has worked to deceive the public for a long time. But that does not work forever, and sadly when neolib policy is ascendant it polarises: and we get a rise in hard right and (perhaps) hard left groupings. Everywhere. Consensus dies, if by consensus we mean compromise which does not wholly meet anyone’s preference, but which all can live with.
It may be argued that the IMF are a little smarter than our home grown neoliberals: but even that is not demonstrable since our own use the language of consensus to the same end.
A pause, as neolibs are wont to do when they must: but only a pause, not a change in analysis or in intent.
It might be significant, in the sense that it suggests they recognise they have pushed it too far for now; and in the sense that it may open the overton window a little to allow other perspectives to be heard more widely. We can hope so. But I give this corrupt institution no credit for competence or for integrity. I believe they act against the interests of the majority, and in addition provide a faux legitimacy to the neoliberal project as a world wide necessity.
And I think you are wrong
I could be too
But it’s very tedious to spend the whole of life trying to change things and then refusing to accept it might happen
In fact it guarantees no change at all
Which is why I will have no truck with the no change is possible approach, not least because it is glaringly obviously untrue
Well, I also would like to see change. To me it will not come while these institutions are given power and respect. I do not see a proposal to stop listening to them, and stop paying them, as either revolutionary or beyond the achievable. In fact, with your skills, I would prefer to see you and some like minded folk funded to present an alternative body with similar powers and a different underlying agenda. That would work.
I think evolution is the answer
“Privatization of state-owned enterprises has in many instances led to more efficient provision of services and lowered the fiscal burden on governments”.
Richard, I don’t know how you can differ with Fiona’s statement that the above is ‘demonstrable untrue’. The first part about globalisation ‘lifting people out of poverty’ might have a smidgeon of merit but even that is contestable (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/no-free-trade-didnt-lift_b_8705312.html).
Privatisation has often been part of the IMF’s euphemistically named ‘structural reforms’ which we now see ripping Greece apart and handing assets to rentiers for wealth syphoning. Even a rentier system creates some trickle down (it can’t help doing so) but the longer term effects as wealth extraction gets more desperate are very destructive.
I know exactly what the IMF has done
And have been deeply critical of it
And this paper recognises error
What the hell is wrong in acknowledging that?
Sorry, but failure to do so is just a waste of time
But the IMF has form in ‘recognising error’ then carrying on as ‘normal’-they have been issuing papers like this for some years which never reach the forefront of debate.
Richard, this is ‘forked -tongue’ territory and one with many tines.
Can we be realistic?
I offer no apologies, but the IMF is made up of a lot of people. The assumption that it is some homogeneous being is wrong
And it is true that research departments are not frontline delivery people and by no means everything filters through
But, let’s consider your approach
Every time anyone in the IMF says let’s change you slap them down
Tell me how that encourages change?
To put it another way – if you are really determined to maintain the status quo carry on as you are but don;t then tell me I am wasting my time engaging or that I am some sell out because I promise you, I will ignore what you have to say, and with good reason, which is that I am only interested in creating change and your approach will never do that unless some ghastly revolution is your aim and I am not going there
‘Every time anyone in the IMF says let’s change you slap them down’
Absolutely not! But we need to hear it from the top otherwise it’s not happening. I’m not advocating violent revolution as you impute but when a document is released that is conventionally neo-classical economics in tone and recommends minor tinkerings -while being muted in self-critique then that ain’t enough when the big names are not shifting on policies that are rapine and kill people.
Now if masses of IMF researchers were to resign from the IMF in outrage at its policies then that would be something else and decidedly non-violent.
Simon
You’re wasting my time and trying my patience
I engage with the real world
Richard
In all the discussion above as to the “bona fides” of the IMF (and the World Bank and the WTO and all the other instruments for syphoning off by the fiew of the wealth created by the many) the example of what is happening to Brazil seems to me to be instructive as to the REAL intent of the “masters of the universe” – namely, to carry on, not just as usual, but with “last minute” deadly extra intent, as they seek to loot the last valuables from a building that is already on fire as a result of their arson policies!
I don’t wish to hijack Richard’s hard work but I’m glad someone else shares my view Andrew that perhaps the neo-libs do think that the game is nearly up and what we are seeing is indeed a last ‘smash and grab’ before the ‘pitchforks’ are deployed? It could be true.
The smash and grab is the symptom that they know they’ve been rumbled.
But I do worry that whoever comes along next will be sort of Blairite – have this huge majority wanting change and then seemingly do very little with it! Yet again!!!
PSR – I recognise that what I said might have appeared to countermand Richard’s discussion with Simon about welcoming the evidence of a change of heart on the part of some elements in the IMF, and very much hope that is not how my comment was understood.
What I was trying to say, rather, was that, whatever the theoreticians in the IMF might now be saying – genuinely so – their “pupils”, the practitioners, were clearly paying no attention, but were instead intent on a souped-up version of their generation-long (at least) plundering of the commons.
I had not linked this to the idea that they think the game is up, and can only hope that that is the case, but have two caveats:
First, there is no doubt about that fact that looting is now the normal modus operandi of predatory rentier capitalism: see http://truepublica.org.uk/global/entered-looting-stage-capitalism/
Secondly, I fear that nothing short of a mass civil uprising on the scale of the Poll Tax riots scaled up to a nationwide level will suffice to break the grip of the economic Mafiosi that currently call the shots in the global economy.
So I welcomed the signs of change in rge IMF, and agree with Richard’s view that such change needs to be applauded, but I Aldo echo Churchill’s view on the Battle of El Alamein – that this was not the beginning of the end, but was at best the end of the beginning, when 4 more years of bloody and deadly struggle still lay ahead of the Allies before victory could be gained. We, the 99%, still have a long, and possibly genuinely bloody, struggle ahead of us, if we are to shake off the yoke that currently weighs us down.
I think that very fair Andrew
I would not for a minute suggest that one article changes the world
But it’s still welcome
Andrew
It is of course your right to be understood clearly so that is perfectly OK with me.
And may I add that my comment above could be one of many ways of interpreting what is going on.
The smash and grab is certainly continuing at full pace in Greece:
“The agency’s asset portfolio — readily available online — goes some to explaining why. A catalogue of beaches, islands, boutique hotels, golf courses, Olympic venues and historic properties in Plaka in hills next to the Acropolis, it could be a shopping list for the scenery in a movie, not a list of possessions that Athens is under immense pressure to offload.
In the coming months, the list will grow as the contours of a “super fund” — established to expedite the sale of ailing utilities and state-owned properties — take shape.”
They are apparently trying to resist the privatisation of Water: http://andreasbieler.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/fighting-for-public-water-in-europe-eci.html
See:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/30/for-sale-greek-islands-hotels-historic-sites-stergios-pitsiorlas