Isn't the prime mandate of the IMF to foster economic growth?
Criticizing excess growth, excess wealth and advocating redistribution of wealth sounds great on the surface but what does it really mean? I am a bit skeptical of the intent and the language used. Excess growth does not mean stop growth, not sure what she would mean by that.
Christine Lagarde Chair of IMF on BBC January 14,2014
The head of the International Monetary Fund has warned about the risks to global economic recovery of deflation.
Christine Lagarde said that "optimism is in the air" about growth, but the recovery is still "fragile"."
If inflation is the genie, then deflation is the ogre that must be fought decisively," she said in a speech in Washington.
Earlier, the World Bank said that the global economy was at a "turning point" but "remained vulnerable".
"We see rising risks of deflation, which could prove disastrous for the recovery," Ms Lagarde said at the National Press.
full article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25752936Since the expected deflation of the great recession never occurred, why be so afraid of deflation, unless your a bankster? Deflation resets costs back to a realistic levels after inflation and over-investment raise them beyond reality. Without deflation we have constant inflation. When will the banksters be happy, when the dollar is worth 1 penny (now it's about 3 cents)?
I don't think any banker or banking system understands limits to growth, natural constraints and how to handle them. All they see is their potential demise and must keep stirring the pot. By redistributing wealth not only does the IMF continue to secure it's position, but they are hoping to start large parts of the undeveloped world down the same track as the developing ones. Just keep eating up the world until it breaks down completely.
A recipe for certain disaster.
I do agree with the statement about 2 trillion in energy subsidies, with certain reservations. Those energy subsidies keep us tied into the fossil fuel system and the now false-green bio-renewables system. As long as civilization is tied to an energy system that depends upon new discovery of finite energy sources and increased pricing to drive technology to obtain these sources, civilization will always be treading the edge of collapse and eventually will collapse.
Using a fully discovered, easily obtainable energy source system is the only key to a secure longevity in an energy driven civilization. That is where the subsidies should be placed.
As you can see, I am highly skeptical of anyone pushing BAU, no matter how egalitarian and humanitarian the terms are that surround it. In the long run (not that long) it will cause more pain, suffering, destruction and death than can be imagined.