IMF bails out Brazil

[verte76]

Hey, I know some people on this forum are from Brazil. I have just seen a headline that the IMF has bailed out Brazil from its economic squeeze. I don't know anything about this, and I can't find any news about it. Does anyone know exactly what happened? Inquiring minds want to know....... Thanks in advance for any info. I'm just curious and I'm not a cat!

 

[rafmed]

Business - AP

IMF Announces $30B Loan for Brazil
Wed Aug 7, 6:13 PM ET
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The International Monetary Fund ( news - web sites), seeking to contain a deepening economic crisis in South America, announced Wednesday it had agreed to provide an additional $30 billion in loans to Brazil.

The agreement, which followed intense negotiations between the lending institution and Brazil, was announced by IMF Managing Director Horst Koehler and came as Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was wrapping up a fact-finding mission to the region.

"The new agreement would commit $30 billion of additional financing by the IMF, 80 percent of which would be disbursed during 2003," Koehler said in a statement.

The new IMF support comes on top of an existing $15 billion credit line the lending institution has extended to Brazil, which saw its currency ? the real ? hit record lows last week on investor concerns about the country's ability to meet its foreign debt obligations.

The size of the IMF support package exceeded the $10 billion to $20 billion package that many investors had been expecting and was clearly designed to show the IMF's strong backing for the economic program being followed by Latin America's largest economy.

Koehler said the new loan package was aimed at "reducing vulnerabilities and uncertainties" the country has been facing in financial markets and would provide a bridge to the government that will be chosen in October elections.

The recent turbulence in Brazil's currency markets has been attributed in part to investor concerns that the two presidential candidates leading in public opinion polls are left-of-center politicians who in the past have criticized the IMF-backed economic reforms supported by the current government.

"Brazil is on a solid long-term policy trend which strongly deserves the support of the international community," Koehler said in his statement. "The active democratic debate within Brazil is to be welcomed, and as we have said, the fund stands read to support any government committed to sound economic policies."

The announcement of the $30 billion support package for Brazil comes three days after the Bush administration provided a $1.5 billion emergency loan to Uruguay. That was the administration's first such direct assistance to a country in economic trouble, and it was aimed at allowing that nation to reopen its banks, which had been closed for four days to halt a run on deposits.

The Brazilian ( news - web sites) currency fell to record lows last week after O'Neill said the administration wanted assurances that any new support to Latin America would not end in "Swiss bank accounts."

O'Neill and the White House quickly backtracked from that statement and the treasury secretary struck a much more conciliatory tone during his four-day trip to the region, which included meetings with the presidents of Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina.

Before the IMF announcement on Brazil, O'Neill had said in Buenos Aires, the last stop on his tour, that he hoped Argentina's government would be able to adopt a sound recovery program that could gain the support of the international community.

The Bush administration took office opposed to big IMF bailouts or direct U.S. assistance to countries in trouble. But it has softened that stance to respond to the deepening crisis in Latin America. During his 2000 run for the presidency, Bush proclaimed Latin America would be a top foreign policy priority for his administration.

 

[rafmed]

FMI is a cause of a great debate in Latin America, to do things in our own, respecting our freedom, and then pay the consecuences of bad policies? ( Argentina) or accept most of the FMI imposicions, that are highly impopulars, but that at least obtain the money to mantain the economy of the country running ( Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay).
Both solutions can lead to social instability and could force a government to fall, the thing is that, simply this global system is not working, every day there are more poors, and more inequitaty.
For years our governments owned big service companies, like phones, oil, electricity, the FMI has demanded that this state monopolies be broken, in many cases it has been done, but now, our people have to pay for the high costs charged by foreign companies. And this market openings have not worked in favor of the people.

 

[verte76]

FMI is a cause of a great debate in Latin America, to do things in our own, respecting our freedom, and then pay the consecuences of bad policies? ( Argentina) or accept most of the FMI imposicions, that are highly impopulars, but that at least obtain the money to mantain the economy of the country running ( Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay).
Both solutions can lead to social instability and could force a government to fall, the thing is that, simply this global system is not working, every day there are more poors, and more inequitaty.
For years our governments owned big service companies, like phones, oil, electricity, the FMI has demanded that this state monopolies be broken, in many cases it has been done, but now, our people have to pay for the high costs charged by foreign companies. And this market openings have not worked in favor of the people.

No, I wouldn't think so. You're right, the global system is not working. Too many people are getting screwed and I don't like it.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

time for me to jump in and plug my huge paper I just wrote on the IMF and World Bank. Lots of info and education on the whole subject. It's really fascinating how these institutions have managed to bungle through the last 50 years.

link here

 

[follower]

verte,

This Q & A article from BBC News website is the most accurate on the issue I could find on the net until now. Some others I read are simply terrible, portrating my country and our complex upcoming election so poorly...pathetic.

Thursday, 8 August, 2002, 12:01 GMT 13:01 UK
Q&A: Brazil's $30bn lifeline

Brazil has just been handed $30bn by the International Monetary Fund to help it stay solvent, as many of its Latin American neighbours experience economic meltdown.

BBC News Online examines why such a large sum is needed - and why Brazil should be considered a worthy recipient.

You could snap up the Brazilian football team for that kind of money and still have change to buy the Suez Canal. Why so much?

At the heart of Brazil's problem is a simple turnaround. Under a right-wing president with free-market policies, the country become a magnet for foreign investment during the 1990s.

Now much of that money is being pulled out, over fears that a left-wing candidate will win forthcoming presidential elections.

O'Neill has signed off on the IMF loan

The result: Brazil's currency, the real, has been hammered.

And that has spelt trouble for the $250bn or so Brazil owes the outside world. Every time the real drops, debt repayments - denominated in dollars - get more expensive.

The maturities - closing dates, as it were - offered by the big lenders when Brazil tries to refinance have been shortening alarmingly. Almost a third - $80bn or so - is now due for repayment within a year.

So the IMF standby loan, 80% of which will be available as early as next year, effectively gives Brazil elbow room to sort out its debts without facing the risk of a default of the sort which condemned Argentina to penury last year.

Why are investors so scared of a left-wing president?

For some investors, particularly those who have bought government bonds, there's the knotty question of whether a left-wing president would allow Brazil to default on some or all international debts - although many observers feel this worry has been overstated.

Investors also wonder about the potential impact on Brazilian businesses.

Might, say, a privatised water company in Sao Paulo be renationalised by a left-wing regime?

Many privatisations - introduced in part at the IMF's behest - may have made money for investors, but are seen as having little improved services for consumers.

Investors are worried about the upcoming election

Rio de Janeiro's electricity company produced healthy profits for the buyers but, having sacked 40% of staff, has experienced trouble maintaining supplies, while costs to the customer have in some cases doubled.

News of the IMF loan, however, has calmed nerves.

Corus, an Anglo-Dutch steel company which is in the middle of a huge Brazilian acquisition, saw its shares soar after the announcement.

So is there a catch to the IMF loan?

There's no new catch - simply Brazil's continued acceptance of the IMF agenda.

Privatisations must continue.

The government's accounts must stay in credit to the tune of 3.75% of total national income. (Given the country's recent performance this condition is not regarded as particularly onerous).

And progress will be reviewed every three months.

In return, as well as the new money - which extends a $15bn line of standby credit due to run out in December - Brazil has received clearance to run down its foreign reserves from $15bn to $5bn.

In effect, another $10bn to spend on shoring up the currency.

Why should Brazil receive this money when Argentina, which is in worse shape, has not received a peso in new IMF support?

For one thing, Argentina's record is much worse than Brazil's.

Traders are easing up on the real thanks to the bailout

Argentina's decision to peg the peso to the US dollar at a time when the dollar was stronger than for decades, while understandable in terms of credibility, priced its exports out of the regional market.

It also meant that when the crash inevitably came, even its citizens' private debts would be dollar denominated and thus would appreciate at an alarming rate.

The other thing is that Argentina's timing was unfortunate.

US President George W Bush came to the White House vowing not to engage in the kind of bailouts that had saved Mexico in the 1990s.

Argentina suffered thanks to that reluctance. But now the instability is spreading to its neighbours - Uruguay, having shut its banks for a week amid street protests, being a prime example - the US has become more conciliatory.

In any case, Brazil is by far the biggest economy south of the US. A failure there would be likely to have broader repercussions.


The link in case you might be interested in some more info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2180496.stm

 

[verte76]

Thanks, follower! Gosh, the IMF sucks.

 

[follower]

In case you haven?t read it yet, this is an article from New York Times, today?s edition. Good enough IMO.

Brazilians Find a Political Cost for I.M.F. Help
By LARRY ROHTER


RIO DE JANEIRO, Aug. 10 ? Brazil and other Latin American governments have followed Washington down the free-market path, only to find they are now losing control over their economies.
The immediate consequences are most visible here in Brazil, which is in the midst of an important national election. Brazil, Latin America's largest country, has just engaged a $30 billion lifeline from the International Monetary Fund, but one that imposes strict policies on the next government. There is a strong chance that it will be a left-leaning one that promises to improve the lives of the poor who were left behind in the economic experimentation.
"Don't try to strangle us," President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who leaves office in January, told market speculators who have sent Brazil's currency plummeting in recent weeks on fears of a government default. He said the loan gave Brazil vital oxygen, and showed that the monetary fund played an important role in developing economies.
But to some Brazilians, it is the fund that could do the strangling. The bailout announced this week is described as the most far-reaching package since the Clinton administration and the I.M.F. came to the rescue of Mexico in 1995, a successful intervention that was paid out almost all at once. But Brazil's comes with unusual strings, and it thrusts the lending agency into the uncomfortable position of being in the middle of Brazil's democratic decisions.
That is because $24 billion of the loan would be delivered next year only if the new government met certain budgetary targets.
"This agreement is an extremely shrewd and subtle piece of political engineering," said Gilberto Dupas, director of the international studies program at the University of S?o Paulo. "No candidate is going to want to be responsible for a brutal reversal of expectations" that would come from not receiving financing from the fund.
After eight years of free-market orthodoxy that has produced only modest growth, Brazil has a strong chance of turning in another direction. A poll released Thursday shows the government's candidate slipping and two leftist opposition candidates ? Luiz In?cio da Silva, known as Lula, of the Workers' Party and Ciro Gomes of the Popular Socialist Party ? with more than 30 percent each. They are possibly heading for a second-round runoff in October.
With so large an amount of money at stake, both Mr. da Silva and Mr. Gomes have reluctantly endorsed the loan deal.
The bailout was intended to stanch a sudden crisis of confidence, manifested by a plummeting currency, investor flight and the prospect of a new government defaulting on $250 billion in public debt.
Such fears have vastly increased the regional tumult that began with Argentina's financial crisis late last year. The crisis propelled the monetary fund to act, with the reluctant backing of the Bush administration, which had earlier opposed new money for Latin American countries.
In the extreme circumstances, the I.M.F. promised the $30 billion, nearly twice the amount that market analysts had expected.
"This is going to contribute to reducing the financial panic that was threatening to make the crisis worse," Jos? Antonio Ocampo, director of the United Nations' Economic Commission for Latin America, said of the monetary fund's package. But he said the effects might be short- lived, and the "consequences for economic growth are limited."
Brazil's new money is to be doled out over 15 months and requires whatever government takes power on Jan. 1 to maintain a budget surplus of 3.75 percent through 2005.
But both of the leading candidates are chafing at what they perceive as an intrusion on Brazil's sovereignty and on their ability to fulfill campaign promises. Guido Mantega, Mr. da Silva's chief economic adviser, complained that the I.M.F. was trying to confine a Workers' Party government "in a plaster cast."
"This limits the capacity for social investment we plan to make," Mr. Mantega said. "If we reduce interest rates and the primary surplus is maintained until 2005, the effort to reheat the economy will be in vain."
The penalties for noncompliance are equally clear. Brazilians need only look next door at Argentina, which has been bogged down for months in futile negotiations to restore its line of credit with the fund.
"When it comes time for the rest of the money to be dispersed in Brazil, because they have quarterly targets and reviews, the first time that Lula misses they can tell him he's not getting any more money," said Walter Molano, a market analyst with BCP Securities. "That's what they did to Argentina last year, saying there would be no waiver, and they will do the same to the next administration in Brazil."
As goes Brazil, so goes the rest of the continent. The slide of the currency here, which lost nearly 20 percent of its value last month, was reflected in similar dips in Colombia and Chile and helped fuel a banking crisis in Uruguay. That was resolved only when the Bush administration agreed to an emergency $1.5 billion bridge loan last weekend.
The standard advice of the fund to clients facing crises has been to insist on increased austerity, arguing that fiscal discipline is a necessary precondition to prosperity. But that translates into enormous suffering for millions of people, strengthens the appeal of left-wing critics of free-market economies and weakens governments that have made the changes Washington is urging.
"It's easy at the top to say cut back on expenditures, but it is hard when you are a politician and the unemployment rate is 18 percent," said Joseph E. Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001.
Latin America "is not like the United States where you have a social safety net," he added. "Firing a worker has enormous economic and social consequences."
From 1980 to 2000, per capita incomes in Latin America grew at only one-tenth the rate of the previous two decades, when governments followed more interventionist and protectionist policies.
In a report that came out early this month, the Economic Commission for Latin America forecast no immediate improvement, saying that Latin America's economy will actually contract nearly 1 percent this year, largely because of the implosion of Argentina's economy.
Despite its reluctant approval of bailouts in Brazil and Uruguay this month, the Bush administration continues to be baffled as to a long-term solution to that problem.
Asked during a news conference in Argentina this week why Latin Americans were increasingly rejecting the magic recipe of privatization, lower tariffs and increased foreign investment, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill replied, "I have no idea." When it was suggested to him that such policies were not yielding the expected results, he said, "I don't know of another plausible answer, do you?"
Mr. O'Neill appeared to offer free trade as the panacea for the region's current difficulties, referring repeatedly to Mr. Bush's approval of trade promotion legislation this week and the opportunities that offers. But Latin American officials consider that formula as simplistic as many of Mr. O'Neill's earlier declarations about the region.
"We're in so extreme a situation here right now that the banks won't even give us export credits," even when the banks are not at risk, a senior Argentine official said after Mr. O'Neill's departure.
"If all of our economies fall apart and have to rely on an I.M.F. life support system to survive," he said, "there's not going to be anyone around for you to trade with."

 

[oktobergirl]

We'll, the first thing that comes to mind to me, is ( and I've been called a skeptic!) is hmmmmm the IMF has the $$ to dole out cash to Brazil, who, despite being in financial trouble doesn't come across quite as desperate as some countries in Africa. Plus, I thought the IMF was moving away from loans anyway? I'm confused.

The way it looks to me ( and please correct me if my perception is way off...) is that if the country in need is going to affect the U.S's enomomy in any way, then we are going to bail them out. If not, we'll let 'em die over there in Africa. HOw many months has it been since O'Neill and Bono went on their "fact finding mission"

**pissed off**

 

[rafmed]

We'll, the first thing that comes to mind to me, is ( and I've been called a skeptic!) is hmmmmm the IMF has the $$ to dole out cash to Brazil, who, despite being in financial trouble doesn't come across quite as desperate as some countries in Africa. Plus, I thought the IMF was moving away from loans anyway? I'm confused.

The way it looks to me ( and please correct me if my perception is way off...) is that if the country in need is going to affect the U.S's enomomy in any way, then we are going to bail them out. If not, we'll let 'em die over there in Africa. HOw many months has it been since O'Neill and Bono went on their "fact finding mission"

**pissed off**

Firts than anything Brazil is not receiving charity, IMF is not a charity organization, Brazil will have to pay every cent the IMF is lending plus rates.

Why Africa countries don't get this money? because IFM will lose his money? I don't know.

About the perception that USA helps when is convenient to his interest can be accurate (can we blame USA for that? I don't think so), and about Bono and his "friends" I have always doubt a major thing will be done other than appear in pics and newspapers, and saddly is looking as the truth.

 

[verte76]

Firts than anything Brazil is not receiving charity, IMF is not a charity organization, Brazil will have to pay every cent the IMF is lending plus rates.

Why Africa countries don't get this money? because IFM will lose his money? I don't know.

About the perception that USA helps when is convenient to his interest can be accurate (can we blame USA for that? I don't think so), and about Bono and his "friends" I have always doubt a major thing will be done other than appear in pics and newspapers, and saddly is looking as the truth.

You're probably right.
Damn.
*pissed off*

 

[Sherry Darling]

And here we have it guys. Proof that the US government CAN act quickly and decisively when it is in it's own interests to do so.


We have GOT to get these letters in the mail. Link to the letters you can cut and paste is, of course, in my sig.

I look foward to your facts, Oktobergirl.

Sula, congrats on your paper.

Thanks for the articles, too, all.


Cheryl

 

[verte76]

Yeah, you're right, Cheryl. I don't know how many letters I've sent to Congress, the President, the IMF, ad infinitum, I'll keep it up.

 

[oktobergirl]

I've sent the letter's too. In fact, I've sent letters, called the White House, my congressional reps, donated money to keep Jubilee going.

I'm still calling and doing the duty, but I must admit, I am dismayed by this latest IMF action. I don't doubt Brazil needs the money, believe me. It just sickens me to think about the others in the world that need it too.


It is looking more and more like the O'Neill and all those polititians just wanted a photo op with Bono.

Im' sorry if this comes across as negative. Tomorrow I'll feel better and be more positive. Right now I'm very disappointed.

 

[follower]

Just to reinforce what rafmed said...this is not about charity, this is business. We are expected to pay with some more privatisations, probably. Privatisations that only have made our people to pay increasing phone bills, electricity bills, with little or even no improvement on the services at all. I just hope they don?t sell our water companies. Access to clean water is still the key to get the poorest people healthier.

I?m fortunate. I have a good job, I work for a state-owned bank, the biggest one here. We are convinced, my co-workers and me, that the bank hasn?t been sold yet simply because it?s too complex and expensive. But I?m afraid that that day will come. I work with long term finances for small companies and new entrepeneurs, people who are starting their own business, people who lost regular jobs on the market. I seriously doubt that, once a private company, Brazilian society would still have this kind of support from the bank.

 

[verte76]

I've sent the letter's too. In fact, I've sent letters, called the White House, my congressional reps, donated money to keep Jubilee going.

I'm still calling and doing the duty, but I must admit, I am dismayed by this latest IMF action. I don't doubt Brazil needs the money, believe me. It just sickens me to think about the others in the world that need it too.


It is looking more and more like the O'Neill and all those polititians just wanted a photo op with Bono.

Im' sorry if this comes across as negative. Tomorrow I'll feel better and be more positive. Right now I'm very disappointed.

Hey, do some protesting! If you are really angry at the government the best thing to do is to go to protest rallies and such. There are many protest activities coming up. The Jubilee people will demonstrate in D.C. in September and some other protest activities are planned. This sure as hell won't hurt. If you can't make the protest donate to or join one of the groups that's hosting a demonstration, like Jubilee. Believe me, activist politics works!

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Just my opinion, please nobody get mad at me for expressing this

Getting the IMF to give more loans to African countries is NOT a solution. The IMF doesn't give the money - it imposes very strict conditions on how the money is used and on how countries must run their economies in order to ensure the IMF get their money back quickly. Besides, the entire continent of Africa is kept in poverty by debt repayments on loans from the IMF so asking to increase those loans and so increase the repayments is not a solution.

When the IMF lends money it imposes Structural Adjustment Programs on the recipeint country. They usually involve measures such as reducing government spending, even where this spending is simply to subsidise food so people are able to feed their families. It might also force countries to decrease tarrifs on imports and exports which have the effect of decreasing the prices farmers can get for their goods and so forcing them further into poverty. One example you've probably heard of is the IMF demanding the introduction of tuition fees in Tanzania, depriving thousands of children of an education.

I think it's great that people here feel so strongly about this and are getting involved in the campaign, it's just that demanding that the IMF give more loans to Africa is not a solution. The IMF does not care about improving the lives of African people, it doesn't care about educating people or providing healthcare and it's not a solution to the problems African countries have.

 

[oktobergirl]

Just my opinion, please nobody get mad at me for expressing this

Getting the IMF to give more loans to African countries is NOT a solution. The IMF doesn't give the money - it imposes very strict conditions on how the money is used and on how countries must run their economies in order to ensure the IMF get their money back quickly. Besides, the entire continent of Africa is kept in poverty by debt repayments on loans from the IMF so asking to increase those loans and so increase the repayments is not a solution.
The IMF does not care about improving the lives of African people, it doesn't care about educating people or providing healthcare and it's not a solution to the problems African countries have.

Good points FZ. I don't propose more loans to Africa. I propose cancelling the debts , which is why I am an active member of Jubilee and other debt forgiving organizations. I am for forgiving debts when there are some "strings attached". What I am against is giving out BILLIONS of dollars to a county in financial trouble when you have Africa on the other side of the world, starving to death, and dying of a disease that could be MINIMIZED. If we forgive the debts and then provide GRANTS, not loans to countries that can prove they will use it- with guidelines- then I will be satisfied.

I will not be satisfied when George Dubya reduces the amount of money or cancels them altogehter, citing military emergencies, then doles out 30 billion to brazil in loans because their "real" is in trouble.

I cannot get out of my head the image of people in Africa with no access to clean water. That is NOT FAIR, I don't care how corrupt the government. Something must be done. I'm over here ordering crap off the internet ($*@($)!!!) and someone over there is dying from diarreah from contaminated drinking water.
THAT SUCKS

 

[verte76]

Good points FZ. I don't propose more loans to Africa. I propose cancelling the debts , which is why I am an active member of Jubilee and other debt forgiving organizations. I am for forgiving debts when there are some "strings attached". What I am against is giving out BILLIONS of dollars to a county in financial trouble when you have Africa on the other side of the world, starving to death, and dying of a disease that could be MINIMIZED. If we forgive the debts and then provide GRANTS, not loans to countries that can prove they will use it- with guidelines- then I will be satisfied.

I will not be satisfied when George Dubya reduces the amount of money or cancels them altogehter, citing military emergencies, then doles out 30 billion to brazil in loans because their "real" is in trouble.

I cannot get out of my head the image of people in Africa with no access to clean water. That is NOT FAIR, I don't care how corrupt the government. Something must be done. I'm over here ordering crap off the internet ($*@($)!!!) and someone over there is dying from diarreah from contaminated drinking water.
THAT SUCKS

I agree. My sentiments exactly. That's why I wish I could go to one of the demonstrations planned.

 

[follower]

Just to keep you all informed in case you?re interested. And also to reinforce that we?re not talking about charity here. This is from New York Times, today edition.

16 Banks Pledge Continued Commitment to Brazil
By REUTERS


Brazil's top economic officials persuaded 16 international banks yesterday to maintain their lending at current levels, a move that relieved some but hardly all the anxiety in that country's financial markets.

The banks, including Citigroup and J. P. Morgan Chase of the United States as well as Deutsche Bank and Banco Santander Central Hispano of Europe, pledged to keep up their lending after meeting in Manhattan with Brazil's finance minister and the president of the Brazil's central bank.

What the banks left unsaid is that most had already cut back sharply on their lending as Brazil began edging closer to a financial meltdown.

Earlier this month, the International Monetary Fund negotiated a $30 billion bailout with the Brazilian government. But that package is aimed only at avoiding a default by the government, and it did not solve the credit problems of Brazilian manufacturers and exporters.

Brazilian companies have $8 billion to $10 billion in debt coming due by the end of the year, and analysts estimate that only about 40 percent of the medium- and long-term loans have been rolled over or refinanced in recent months.

The situation affecting exporters, who play a pivotal role in shoring up Brazil's financial position, may be even tighter. Alexandre Schwartsman, an economist at BBA, a Brazilian bank in S?o Paulo, said anecdotal evidence suggested that only 30 percent of Brazilian export credits were being renewed earlier this summer.

In a statement after yesterday's meeting, the banks stressed their "continued support" for Brazil and vowed to "sustain their general level of business.

"The tone of the meeting was very positive," said William Rhodes, senior vice chairman of Citigroup, in an interview.

Amilio Fraga, president of Brazil's central bank, said the meeting was "better than we had expected."

Investors appeared encouraged, but not jubilant. Brazil's beleaguered currency, the real, climbed slightly when the news first came out but ended the day almost unchanged. The value of Brazilian bonds climbed slightly.

Mr. Schwartsman of BBA said the banks' cautious support might have been the most that was realistic to expect.


PS.: The correct name of the president of Brazil?s central bank is Arm?nio Fraga.

 

[oktobergirl]

Thanks for posting that follower.

It seems that the IMF is continuing it's loans of billions of dollars to countries that have the potential to pay it back.

I'm thought about this for the past couple of weeks, and I've come to terms that the IMF is there to give out loans to countries in financial trouble. I can accept that, only because I realize I cannot change it.

But what really troubles me in relation to loans given out by the IMF is that the IMF is CAPABLE of getting things done.

Meanwhile, Africa is lost somewhere.... STILL.

 

[follower]

I understand your point oktobergirl, I?m concerned about Africa like you are. But as rafmed firstly stated, IMF doesn?t really care about that, neither if what they demand from countries like mine are fair or good for its people. The article from NY Times is accurate, in my opinion, that?s why I posted it. I live here, so I supposedly know. Plus I work with finances and loans for companies in general, and small companies in particular, the ones that create jobs. Many of them have been struggling to get their goods exported these past few months because our credit lines have diminished. All I can say is that money is getting more and more scarce and people are loosing their jobs, a situation that really concerns me. When a citizen loose his/her job he/she looses also dignity, as if he/she weren?t a citizen anymore.

 

[verte76]

I understand your point oktobergirl, I?m concerned about Africa like you are. But as rafmed firstly stated, IMF doesn?t really care about that, neither if what they demand from countries like mine are fair or good for its people. The article from NY Times is accurate, in my opinion, that?s why I posted it. I live here, so I supposedly know. Plus I work with finances and loans for companies in general, and small companies in particular, the ones that create jobs. Many of them have been struggling to get their goods exported these past few months because our credit lines have diminished. All I can say is that money is getting more and more scarce and people are loosing their jobs, a situation that really concerns me. When a citizen loose his/her job he/she looses also dignity, as if he/she weren?t a citizen anymore.

Horrors! That's bad news. People are having a tough time all over. Even the U.S. economy is looking less than rosy.

 

[oktobergirl]

I am sure Brazil can use these loans. I am not ANTI Brazil, or anti loan necessarily.

I just think the IMF picks and chooses who they loan to. That is what bugs me about them.

I'm more bitching about the IMF than anything else.

I wish Brazil good luck in the future!

 

[follower]

I got your message perfectly oktobergirl, thanks.