Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
Thank heaven for the Chicago Tribune editors. I always can depend on them to demonstrate uncanny ignorance of economics, which gives me the repeated opportunity to pontificate.
Here is an excerpt from their 7/2/11 editorial titled, “Fresh air at the IMF.
When Christine Lagarde begins her job as managing director of the International Monetary Fund on Tuesday, she will step into one of the most powerful finance jobs in the world at a time of instability both inside and outside the global lender. She will also be a rare commodity at the top of the IMF, a woman.
The IMF needs, more than anything, strong leadership right now. Greece’s debt crisis threatens the worldwide economic recovery. Emerging market leaders from China to Russia to Brazil are demanding a bigger say in the IMF, which is traditionally run by a European. And the IMF’s internal working are in flux following the departure of director Dominique Strauss-Kahn . . .
Some critics assert that Lagarde’s lack of economic training — she is a corporate lawyer, not an economist — leaves her unqualified to run an institution heralded as a temple to global economics. But those who know her say that argument is weak. Lagarde, most recently the French finance minister, brings substantial credentials to her new post. (She) is known as a shrewd negotiator, effective manager, superb communicator and a no-nonsense consensus builder.
She has ample qualifications . . .
Perfect. A group of editors, who continually demonstrates a lack of economics knowledge, agrees with the IMF that a corporate lawyer has “ample qualifications” to run an economics-centered organization. Why do they agree? As I said, they themselves lack economics knowledge so they feel such knowledge is unnecessary.
Question to Tribune editors: Would you like your next surgery to be conducted by someone with no medical training? Or when you owned the Chicago Cubs, did you hire ballplayers who didn’t know how to play baseball? (Wait a minute. On second thought, that is exactly what you did. Now I’m beginning to understand your editorial positions).
Then again, perhaps the Tribune is right. Perhaps someone with no economics knowledge will do better than a gang of old-line economists, who still live in the gold-standard days, and have zero understanding about the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty. Surely the IMF, by repeatedly lending money to monetarily non-sovereign, overextended nations(!), then telling these nations to cut spending and increase taxes (the most direct route to recession), has demonstrated that knowledge of economics is not a qualification for managing director. So for these astute fellows (all men), Ms. Lagarde may be the most logical choice.
The blind lead the blind.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. It’s been 40 years since the U.S. became Monetary Sovereign, , and neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Fed, nor the vast majority of economists and economics bloggers, nor the preponderance of the media, nor the most famous educational institutions, nor the Nobel committee, nor the International Monetary Fund have yet acquired even the slightest notion of what that means.
Remember that the next time you’re tempted to ask a teenager, “What were you thinking?” He’s liable to respond, “Pretty much what your generation was thinking when it ruined my future.”