Comments on: Why Gordon Brown can’t run the IMF

By: Danny_Black

Danny_Black — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:57:40 +0000

Yeap, it is all politics. Brown left a fantastic legacy of no boom and bust, very low debt, strong currency, great record of GDP growth and a bullet-proof financial system. I didn’t even need “A whole slew of major economists” to tell me that. And he clearly is not responsible for any of the issues that the UK that the UK doesn’t have anyway. After all he was merely in charge of the economy for 13 years, not nearly enough time to have any impact whatsoever, apart from the positive impact which is all due to him whilst clearly the non-existent negative impact, that only lying political opponents that can’t grasp his innate genuius claim exist, are all down to everyone else.

Just goes to show you can fool some of the people all of the time.

By: warren_currier

warren_currier — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:57:43 +0000

@FifthDecade

“lack of attention to detail of the American financial sector” ??

Sir, DETAILS?!! The US Americans who gamed the entire event got what they wished for!!

By: Harry_Pilgrim

Harry_Pilgrim — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:32:51 +0000

The boom and the deficit were both apparent ahead of the UK’s general election in 2005. Mr Brown’s pro-cyclical deficit spending was already conspicuous. I remember the OECD pointing out the folly.

Did the IMF? A challenge for it’s next leader is to be impartial of it’s member governments and tell their voters plainly how things are.

Good idea about Mr Zhou.

By: Dafydd

Dafydd — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:29:17 +0000

Given the balance of power in the world I think the US should give up the world bank before the Europeans give up the IMF, but anyway Mr Cameron’s characterisation of Mr Brown in simple political poison.

It is no good talking about a list of people unqualified for the job. Perhaps you would like to mention someone you think would be a good choice? Zhou Xiaochan?

By: Peacemaker2012

Peacemaker2012 — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:52:17 +0000

*who really understands the IMF and its process of non functionality – it was the IMF that killed the Copenhagen Accords “because they did not have the expertise” to understand the environment. The IMF is a US controlled vehicle, that is run by bureaucrats. I think Brown would be the perfect guy to run it. Not only does he have some inside clout but he understood what Lester B Pearson indicated back in 1956 when he proposed the.7 %of GDP for International support mechanisms (actually it was 1% but no one reading this would be aware of that detail and its distinction – not being elitist in this information – but if you were aware of what I point out – you would be in the .oooooo1 minority of economists.

By: FifthDecade

FifthDecade — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:56:23 +0000

If we get rid of a European as always the choice for head of the IMF then let’s also get rid of the ‘Americans only’ selections for the World Bank – such as a Brazilian or a Russian? Surely the lack of attention to detail of the American financial sector that led to the sub-prime crisis disqualifies them as much as Gordon Brown’s rescue of the situation excludes him?

I now await a barrage of hostility from American financial people who can never see things from anyone else’s point of view.

By: johnhhaskell

johnhhaskell — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:39:55 +0000

Anyone who disagrees with Cameron’s prescription of bleeding and leeches is unfit to run the IMF, it seems

By: johnband

johnband — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:43:46 +0000

I don’t agree with the Tory lie that “large chunks of what Brown did turned out to be disastrous”, because it’s a ridiculous lie.

But you’re right that he’ll never be a plausible head of the IMF, because David Cameron decided even before the 2010 election that his party line for the UK’s financial problems was to lie that they were Gordon Brown’s fault, and shows no signs of letting up on that lie. That kind of tension between the MD and a major member couldn’t ever be workable.

By: seanmatthews

seanmatthews — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:40:11 +0000

Felix, all of this is not exactly right. Cameron says:

“Above all what matters is the person running the IMF someone who understands the dangers of excessive debt, excessive deficit, and it really must be someone who gets that rather than someone who says that they don’t see a problem.”

This is not statesman-like olympian and objective insight – this is Cameron sounding off on his own not very-well informed ideological prejudices. A whole slew of major economists think that Cameron’s attitude to debt and deficit is deluded and may possibly be extremely damaging to the UK economy. There may be any number of good reasons why Gordon Brown should not head up the IMF – David Cameron’s assessment of his macroeconomic competence is not one of them.

By: 3oosion

3oosion — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:36:16 +0000

Compare Cameron’s vast credibility – look at the results of his austerity program – about as disastrous as many of us predicted they would be.