Seeking Alpha
Seeking Alpha Portfolio App for iPad
Finance
(1)
Market Currents

IMF head Lagarde tells The Guardian her agency has no intention of easing the terms of Greece's...

  • Saturday, May 26, 2012, 11:50 AM ET
    IMF head Lagarde tells The Guardian her agency has no intention of easing the terms of Greece's bailout package. Greeks need to help themselves by paying their taxes, she says, adding she has more sympathy for poor African children than Greek ones - interesting sentiments from one who was part of the regime that oversaw hundreds of billions transferred to financial institutions in the aftermath of the GFC.
Track new comments on this story

This news story has 36 comments:

  •  
    Meaning Greece can actually help itself and it is not doing so Vs Africa can not and does not have the benefits of a free market capitalist society. Greece, while in serious trouble, and trouble to the point where a bailout is only a waste of money, because many of the banks do not have suffecient collateral to back bailout funds, hence using the ELA, had the opportunity to not let this happen where as Africa has always been a poor nation without a prosperous society. Makes sense to me.
    26 May 2012, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  •  
    Lagarde was a fool to give Greece any money to begin with, they (Greece) are not an emerging economy (IMF's proper directive). Just another example of Socialists wasting other people’s money, I doubt Lagarde has pledged any of her own money to the Greek cause.
    26 May 2012, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  •  
    IMF was not wise to keep sending money to Greece when the wealthy their refuse to pay any taxes, reminds me of US today. The US has had 58 years of tax cuts and a federal debt to match.
    26 May 2012, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  •  
    terry
    You are showing your lack of education again, the correct word is "there" not "their".
    Explains the inane things you write here.
    26 May 2012, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  •  
    58 years of tax cuts and the federal debt to match? Yeah that's how we got in our situation. This is why financial advisors have careers.

    Hey Terry after you figure out how much of your money you get to keep after

    Federal tax
    State tax
    Property tax
    Gas tax
    Sales tax
    Corporate tax
    Cigarrette tax (if appliccable)
    and coming soon to a theater near you- consumption tax

    Explain to me how we aren't overtaxed through the system over and over and over. Tax cuts are cuts from overtaxing
    26 May 2012, 01:22 PM Reply Like
  •  
    Terry

    In your own biased way you unwittingly proved a point brilliantly.

    The IMF is a bank funded by governments that gave their funds to another government (i.e. Greece) and as you indicated they were "not wise."

    That is the exactly the reason people, including Warren Buffet, don't want to give their money to governments. It is moving from the wise to the "not wise." What rationale person would want to do that?
    26 May 2012, 02:20 PM Reply Like
  •  
    Wyostocks. You have used a comma splice You divided two complete sentences with a comma. I guess your education didn't help you that much. Try sticking to the substance of the debate please.
    26 May 2012, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  •  
    rookie
    When you are around here a bit longer and read more of Terry's inane comments you'll understand why I wrote what I did.
    26 May 2012, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  •  
    The U.S. has way too much federal debt because of ridiculous government spending, not tax cuts. This is a terrible use of taxpayers money and will cost us even more in the future unfortunately. Bush did increase federal debt, but Obama has increased federal debt at a much faster pace (see link below). I know what you're going to come back with, so look at how the year-over-year change in federal debt continues to rise at the same pace as it did during the 2008-2009 recession. Why the need for trillions more in government spending in 2011 and 2012 when things are going so well because of Obama's "policies" (cough, bs, cough)? You think the U.S. can generate an extra $4 trillion from increasing taxes?! I guess we'll all have no income in the future. We ultimately need to rein in outrageous government spending. As a taxpayer I didn't want the government to spend $4 trillion + so why should I have to pay for it?

    http://bit.ly/K2mc7I
    26 May 2012, 05:18 PM Reply Like
  •  
    Great comment above. Just as Greece is being used as a deflector shield for the crisis brewing in Spain, similarly it is distracting people from US debt woes. $15 trillion is a huge amount of money. I would add that it is not just Bush or Obama but the entire political system which paves the way for huge medicare, medicaid and social security payouts. Two wars hasn't helped either....
    26 May 2012, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  •  
    Tax revenue is a sign of economic health, not tax rate. If you look at the top tax rate and plot it vs income tax reciepts you will see they are inversly proportional to each other. Our government doesn't have a income problem, it has a spending problem.
    26 May 2012, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  •  
    Taxes consume only 17% of US aggregate income. In ferociously competitive Germany the tax burden is over twice that figure.
    27 May 2012, 01:05 AM Reply Like
  •  
    Really? US deficits dried up during Clinton's last term. They skyrocketed after Bush came to power and passed big tax cuts.
    27 May 2012, 01:05 AM Reply Like
  •  
    Taxes are 17% of US aggregate income. US is a tax paradise to most countries and that is no exaggeration.
    27 May 2012, 01:05 AM Reply Like
  •  
    Since you're in Paris now please stop bashing the US.

    Your location is proof enough that you don't like the USA.
    27 May 2012, 01:16 AM Reply Like
  •  
    Deficits dried up because at that time we had an economy that was creating a lot of jobs that paid taxes. Remeber the dot com bubble. A lot of "tech jobs" were created and those all paid taxes. GDP increased an average of 5.8% from '92-'00. Federal tax recipts increased 67% during clinton. Unless there was a 67% tax increase across the board, you cant say tax increases on the rich caused tax revenue to go up that much.


    Of course it needs to be said that Clinton also didnt have to fund two wars.
    27 May 2012, 02:29 AM Reply Like
  •  
    Nice try on the misdirection of taxes Terry (not really my profile pic) silly, SPENDING has not been cut AT ALL, by anyone.

    Spending is what Bankrupts a household, a city, a state, a nation, an EUnion.
    27 May 2012, 03:33 AM Reply Like
  •  
    A lot of DOT.COM stock options were cashed under Clinton that paid taxes in the boom years. Now apparently they are moving to Singapore to avoid taxes.
    27 May 2012, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  •  
    You missed the point of all the hidden taxes we pay when we buy something. That number is bogus of reality. Thats why people think we can pay more taxes, because of skewed numbers like that. Kind of like how Obama has ONLY increased spending under his administration by 1.9% as compared to all other presidents around 7%.....but it.s 1.9 percent compounded on top of all of the other presidents huge spending and is actually more. WE pay way too many taxes thru and thru the entire system of a product from inception to delivery. Period
    28 May 2012, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  •  
    AIP

    Could be but then do most countries provide much less opportunity so it is ingrained in everyone to just go along to get along and nanny state will take care of you? So they cheat like crazy a la Greece to get ahead beause it is hopeless otherwise?

    I think I would rather be poor and have freedom to determine my outcome then middle to lower class with no ability to dream and aspire.
    28 May 2012, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  •  
    Thats a very good statement. Im going to copy that.
    29 May 2012, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  •  
    They had to give the bailouts in the beginning so that the banking sector would not collapse and figure out an exit mechanism (in the works now) although I agree with the above posters.
    26 May 2012, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  •  
    A society where people retire @ 55 vs. society where people don't live past 35 due to living conditions. I would rather help Africa hands down, the Greeks did this to themselves and had plenty of opportunity to fix themselves but chose not to. Instead of giving them a bailout, I would rather provide food aid, clean water, etc to Africa. Let Greece default, its the only way they will learn.
    26 May 2012, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  •  
    The default is necessary to start the Greek recovery. It will hurt all who are owed money (banks and individuals) but there is no choice.

    You can't cure too much debt with more debt.
    26 May 2012, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  •  
    Greece will be out of the EUR shortly. I give it 3 months and they will be out with probability of 95% in my view. Greece will not pay a penny back to any of the lenders. It is just a third world country living a first world country standard of living and that is going to vanish when the standard of living drops 75%. The glorious Troika will take losses on the Greek loans as well. This whole Greek thing is total madness. Nobody should give them any money.
    The two favorite sports in Greece are: corruption and not paying taxes. The main politicians and all ministers are the captains of the teams.
    The best way for them to exit is to start a parallel currency. They use the EUR and also have a NEW LION STRONG DRACHMA. They use the drachma to pay pensions and salaries.
    26 May 2012, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  •  
    I live in Greece and have not seen corruption in the last 10 years. Before that, there were bribes but since joining the EU they cleaned up (compared to, say SE Asia where I also live). What I have seen however is waste and largess, mainly with EU monies. I even have some relatives who ripped off the EU. But the EU should have known better, since Greece has the modern record for defaults (by one estimate, half their modern years have been in default). Bring back the drachma: it looked cool, and let's face it, Greece gets by just fine with periodic debasements of the drachma since 20% of their economy is tourism, which is sort of like an export if you think about it. Sad to say, but I don't expect Greece to ever become Singapore, so why bother? Bring on devaluation and default. And beware lest you in the USA follow the same path.
    26 May 2012, 11:56 PM Reply Like
  •  
    Giving them money was smart. It gave Europe two years to prepare despite fierce resistance.

    I don't see what Greece gains from a parallel currency.
    27 May 2012, 12:52 AM Reply Like
  •  
    Euro at present form is untenable. Greece, Spain, Portugal and for that matter the whole eurozone should prepare for an orderly separation of these countries from the euro currency. Like freezing all bank accounts to prevent bank runs. Start printing their own currencies. Impose import taxes on goods from other remaining eurozone countries. Promote widespread liquidity with their own currencies to promote growth and employment so that they can repay their debts however long it's going to take.
    27 May 2012, 07:53 AM Reply Like
  •  
    The only reason this worries me is because post-recession the countries are so inter connected that I believe a default might do more harm than good. The domino effect should not be underestimated after the 2008 financial crisis. A Greek default might set up Portugal or Ireland for a fall, and cause the Spanish economy to fall still further. The dominoes might be wobbling right now, but imagine what a Greece default would do. Therefore, it is obvious why the Eurozone governments would rather a planned and unchaotic way forward for Greece
    26 May 2012, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  •  
    Greece defalted in March
    26 May 2012, 11:44 PM Reply Like
  •  
    Maybe the IMF should be placed in charge of the whole EU situation. At least they have some experience and understanding of bailouts with conditions for change.
    26 May 2012, 05:39 PM Reply Like
  •  
    Was that sarcasm?
    26 May 2012, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  •  
    More like an acid trip...

    The IMF needs to focus on its directive (emerging economies), leave the wasting of German tax payer's money to the EU Socialists.

    Check Roubini - What's your next move?
    27 May 2012, 01:02 AM Reply Like
  •  
    Actually, as someone who lives in Africa, I'd prefer the IMF, World Bank, UN, and aid organizations pack up and go home. They accomplish virtually nothing and are boondoggles for western aid workers, who live like kings here. These programs cause all kinds of economic distortions. The big greedy corporations that have come into Africa over the last 10 years have done more to develop these countries than 50 years of aid. My only complaint about them is that they sometimes act like they're immune to laws here (much like the UN). The only aid I support here is immunization programs and access to clean drinking water. The rest is crap. Lagarde should keep the IMF money in Europe.
    27 May 2012, 05:35 AM Reply Like
  •  
    Default in Europe lowers the moral bar, making it easier to accept in the USA.

    I am stunned by the people who invest in bonds. Not only is the return negative, but GM, Chrystler, Birmingham Alabama, Vallejo California all spent investor principle and returned bupkis.
    27 May 2012, 07:01 AM Reply Like
  •  
    Depends on what your time frame is for sitting in bonds. Getting out of the market at 1420 and seeing down the road to all of these issues we face and the world face and sitting in bonds for a better entry, good idea. Dividends dont make up for a 20% decline, or even the decline we have had as of this month, and the majority of people will not be able to pick the stocks or to be lucky enough to be in the stocks that don't get hit on a downturn. As far as a long term idea it is obviously not smart as you are technically losing money thru inflation. But losing money thru inflation is better than losing it all if you dont know what the hell you are doing. I always like when people compare the 10 yr with how many stocks give more of a dividend in the s&p. They dont ever seem to mention the fact you can lose your investment making your extra special dividend, yield less money in your pocket after you take a huge haircut on your stock for staying in at the highs.
    30 May 2012, 07:04 PM Reply Like
LATEST|
TODAY SO FAR|
YESTERDAY
Other date
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
Latest Global Articles
More Latest Articles »