Hacker News Reader

Comment by nhstanley | Hacker News Reader

What's so entitled about it? The IMF is a creditor just like any other, and assumes risks when it makes loans. The duty of the Greek government is—without question—to its people. While you can certainly argue that default is not in the people's best interest, if the leaders honestly think that's the best option then that's what they should do.

View on HN

The IMF is a creditor just like any other, -> and assumes risks when it makes loans <-

Exactly this

All that Greece and the institutions that lent money to them did was to push the problem forward and make it worse

Greece has basically two options: deflate their prices in Euro (what austerity ends up doing) or have a currency that can float. It's that simple

(Or having a stronger fiscal union in the Eurozone, but that's hard as well)

Note that "prices" here is an expansive sense of the word that includes wages.

Correct.

Because prices embed wage costs and ability of people to pay.

No, the IMF isn't a creditor just like any other. Its wikipedia page reads,

>The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an international organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., in the United States, of 188 countries working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.

I realize that you might consider it simply marketing text, so that you may likewise read the same thing about Goldman Sachs. I can imagine reading this text in an advertisement:

>Goldman Sachs is an American multinational investment banking firm working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.

But I wouldn't take it at face value. Do you really think there is no difference between the first sentence and my version with Goldman Sachs in it?

This is an open question. Personally, I read the first versoin (with IMF, taken from its WP page) at face value, whereas I would roll my eyes if I saw the version with Goldman Sachs in it and would consider it to be content-free marketing written by an ad agency with no relationship with Goldman Sachs, nor is there any chance the second version would be accepted by Wikipedia as a neutral point of view.

Basically, I am saying that in my personal opinion and Wikipedia's, the IMF is not "a creditor like any other."

If you read up on IMF's track record, esp. in Latin America, you could be excused to roll your eyes approximately as hard with both versions. I understand that Wikipedia accepts the first definition because it's an official mission statement of the IMF. That doesn't make it any more true in practice.

The only reason the IMF (et al) had to step in was because no normal creditor was willing to assume the risks that came with lending money to Greece anymore. If the IMF was a normal creditor they would have never given any loans to Greece, and definitely not at this scale.

So disregarding the IMF now with a claim of "they are just a creditor and knew the risks" seems a bit unfair. They lent this money to support Greece, not because anybody thought it was a good investment.

They lent money so that Greece could service its existing debt. Whether that's for the benefit of Greece is arguable.

They don't honestly think that. They know very well what they promised is stupid. It's just that left-wing people are a lot better at making promises than at living by them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com