Comments on: Why Fischer’s IMF candidacy is a non-starter A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: traducere romana daneza Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:07:24 +0000 I’ve been surfing online greater than three hours these days, but I never found any fascinating article like yours. It’s pretty worth sufficient for me. Personally, if all site owners and bloggers made excellent content material as you probably did, the net can be a lot more useful than ever before.

By: Danny_Black Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:36:38 +0000 Foppe, you probably don’t care because like your post on GS you are too stupid to understand what you are talking about and presumably are cutting and pasting from some other idiot.

Taiwan did not go to the IMF and was barely affected by the asian crisis. Maybe you are confusing them with Thailand? Both begin with T right? Singapore also did not need to go to the IMF because both these countries unlike Korea and Thailand and Indonesia were not doing a carry trade. Dumbass.

hariknaidu, I assume you’d prefer someone from Syria or Libya? Would be a nice follow-on compliment after their presidency of the UN Human Rights Council

By: fixedincome Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:06:55 +0000 This feels like a thread that deserves its own post on Gawker.

By: hariknaidu Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:57:39 +0000 Thank IMF for disqualifying Fisher not only for his old age but also his dual nationality. What oes he want to be? American of Israeli?

By: Dafydd Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:51:58 +0000 “Christine Lagarde, whose main qualification for the job is that she’s French. But she’s smart, she’s tough, she’s an able politician ”

On the other hand, her main problem is that she is French. given her qualifications (and, with world leadership as it is, being a woman is pretty neat) surely you would be greatly partisan for Ms Lagarde were she NOT French.

For me, while it is extremely frustrating that she is French, she is a breath of fresh air. Over here in the UK she gives regular TV interviews and is extremely frank for a politician. She manages to combine this with not causing too much controversy too often.

Christine Lagarde is an excellent candidate. She will probably be among the best leaders the IMF has ever had. She will shake the institution up and unsettle people who have become too comfortable. It is just a pity that she happens to be French.

By: Foppe Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:48:33 +0000 “As early as 2001″. Fat lot of good that did those countries. You will note that Malaysia, as the exception, did immediately reinstate capital controls, and was the only country that exited the crisis relatively unscathed (along with China, which also still had CC in place). It was, however, heavily lambasted for doing so by Fischer and his ilk.

As for your blather about “the depth of my ignorance”: we had already established that you care entirely too much about which irrelevant macroeconomic theory adheres to, and entirely too little about what they do with it. During his tenure at the IMF he was one of the most vocal advocate of dogmatic neoliberalization of first Russia (which ended up with a kleptocracy thanks to policies Fischer helped enact), and then the Asian Tiger countries (and thailand etc.) Now, i’m sure you find it of immense importance to do “justice” to the man’s theoretical background, but at the IMF, he either preached Chicago School economics, or your precious MIT variant is no better at all. As such, I do not care about the distinction.

By: agradstudent Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:50:02 +0000 Foppe, saying that Fischer is a practitioner of “Chicago school” economics reveals an extraordinary lack of knowledge on your part about academic macroeconomics. In fact, Fischer was one of the leading lights of MIT macroeconomics, which was basically the “Chicago school’s” foil. No one with any knowledge of academic economics would ever make such a ridiculous statement. I congratulate you for demonstrating the depth of ignorance a person can reveal in a single sentence.

I don’t know exactly what Fischer advocated during the Asian financial crisis (and whether he fought with other members of the IMF), but it is worthwhile to note that as early as 2001, he was declaring in interviews that capital controls were lifted incorrectly: s/shared/minitext/int_stanleyfischer.htm l

By: Foppe Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:50:33 +0000 But maybe it’s also important—even more important—to have someone who is more than a politician, someone with an incredibly deep understanding of the underlying economic issues (he was Ben Bernanke’s thesis advisor, for god’s sake) and experience with countries in financial crisis.
My, aren’t you self-confident. Too bad you haven’t actually acquainted yourself with Fischer’s splendid record in practicing Chicago School “economics” (with its central dogma that theory trumps empirical data) down the throats of South Korea, Singapore, Indonesia and Taiwan.
Let me remind you, then. Fischer was the guy who forbade those countries to reinstate capital controls, leaving them to the mercy of a bunch of currency speculators. Yes, these same capital controls that the IMF has only 13 years later admitted “might have their uses”: 11e0-a718-00144feab49a.html
But don’t let these facts rain on your parade, busy as you are calling Felix out on criticizing the rather poor credentials of this “economic giant.”

By: agradstudent Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:58:54 +0000 This is a remarkably poorly argued post. You’re pointing out one instance in which Fischer had trouble winning the support of the board (an issue where the board had strong political incentives to act “tough” and according to orthodoxy) and using it to conclude that he has trouble influencing the board—and this comes from a time when Fischer was #2, not #1 at the IMF.

How much do you know about Lagarde’s political career in France? Have you ruled out the possibility that there is a similar episode in her past, when she didn’t get her way on some political issue? Are you going to wildly extrapolate from that episode to conclude that she is bad at influencing others? Or does she get a past because, hey, she has a political background, so she must be good with people?

By the way, saying that Fischer “literally wrote the book when it comes to economic orthodoxy” is also a very sloppy statement. There was a TREMENDOUS difference between the “orthodoxy” at institutions like the IMF and the “orthodoxy” among actual academic economists. If you don’t recognize this distinction, you’re in trouble.

It’s particularly bizarre to see you compare Fischer to French technocrats—if there is any category of people containing virtually zero academic economists, it’s French technocrats. Presumably you think they’re similar because they’re boring and technocrat-y, but in reality they’re incredibly dissimilar, in much the same way that Bernanke and Trichet are dissimilar.

I’m not even going to bother with the juvenile “oh my God, Fischer worked at Citigroup under Bob Rubin!” argument. This kind of guilt by association (or skewering of anyone who has ever held a financial industry job) has no principled end.

Look: there is a good chance of a crisis in Europe in the next few years. Maybe we need someone with “political connections” in Europe, even if she knows jack about economics. But maybe it’s also important—even more important—to have someone who is more than a politician, someone with an incredibly deep understanding of the underlying economic issues (he was Ben Bernanke’s thesis advisor, for god’s sake) and experience with countries in financial crisis.

But hey, Lagarde is “smart, tough, and an able politician”. So is Hillary Clinton, who also has approximately the same background in international finance and economics (i.e. none). Does anyone think it would be a reasonable idea to name her head of the IMF? Of course not. But somehow, a few years as Minister of Trade and Minister of Economic Affairs (political appointments, in a country that is not exactly known for prizing economic expertise) are enough to qualify Lagarde. It’s a little crazy, to be honest.

By: Foppe Mon, 13 Jun 2011 07:33:36 +0000 Please don’t forget what he did to Russia (his role in the forced privatization that allowed the Oligarchs to grab most of Russia’s best companies or even industries).