<font size=1>
I can't post a rebuttal at Le Cafe', so I figured I'd do it here. My problem with this article is not that I'm a fan of nor do I trust the IMF, nor am I convinced of the creditworthiness of South America right now. The problem is this: the author declares that, because the nature of the financing provided does not allow for Brazil to take the money and buy stuff, the financing is a 'lie.'
It reminds me of prop trading. The firm gives a trader a half a million dollars or more a day to trade. He can't take that 'credit' and go out and buy houses, cars, and yachts, BUT he can take that credit into the marketplace and trade with it. It's non-fungible and it's used to meet margin (or 'reserve') requirements.
And, he can lose money, (in which case the provider of his aid will cut him off or monitor him more closely or put him with a more experienced deployer of capital or whatever), so it really <i>is</i> a loan, albeit one with strings attached.
While some prop traders are responsible financially, others, given a half a mil in the morning and a poor history of managing this amount of cash, might have it all spent on schemes, toys and girls by noon. The Latin American countries have proven themselves unfit to handle the aid they've been given so often in the past. Indeed, the lenders themselves have repeatedly shown themselves unfit to make such loans.
This type of credit, one that can't be spent, is probably the wisest kind of aid that can be given. It enables them to function, encourages them to reform, but it's not carte blanche.
Of course there is risk involved. We're dealing with money and human nature, not to mention the track record of the subjects. But there is a built in discipline to the aid. It's speaks of a responsibility on the part of the aid giver that is subtle genius. This, of course, is lost on conspiracy theorists and perpetual cynics.
</font>
I can't post a rebuttal at Le Cafe', so I figured I'd do it here. My problem with this article is not that I'm a fan of nor do I trust the IMF, nor am I convinced of the creditworthiness of South America right now. The problem is this: the author declares that, because the nature of the financing provided does not allow for Brazil to take the money and buy stuff, the financing is a 'lie.'
It reminds me of prop trading. The firm gives a trader a half a million dollars or more a day to trade. He can't take that 'credit' and go out and buy houses, cars, and yachts, BUT he can take that credit into the marketplace and trade with it. It's non-fungible and it's used to meet margin (or 'reserve') requirements.
And, he can lose money, (in which case the provider of his aid will cut him off or monitor him more closely or put him with a more experienced deployer of capital or whatever), so it really <i>is</i> a loan, albeit one with strings attached.
While some prop traders are responsible financially, others, given a half a mil in the morning and a poor history of managing this amount of cash, might have it all spent on schemes, toys and girls by noon. The Latin American countries have proven themselves unfit to handle the aid they've been given so often in the past. Indeed, the lenders themselves have repeatedly shown themselves unfit to make such loans.
This type of credit, one that can't be spent, is probably the wisest kind of aid that can be given. It enables them to function, encourages them to reform, but it's not carte blanche.
Of course there is risk involved. We're dealing with money and human nature, not to mention the track record of the subjects. But there is a built in discipline to the aid. It's speaks of a responsibility on the part of the aid giver that is subtle genius. This, of course, is lost on conspiracy theorists and perpetual cynics.
