Translation of the Communiqué of the 24th IMFC Meeting

IMF-speak translated into layman's terms.

Original version here

Communiqué of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the IMFC: Collective Action for Global Recovery
Chaired by Mr. Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore and Minister for Finance Washington, DC, September 24, 2011

The global economy has entered a dangerous phase, calling for exceptional vigilance, coordination and readiness to take bold action from members and the IMF alike.

In spite of trillions of taxpayer dollars wasted on saving banks, bailing out investors and generally trying to preserve the Status Quo at any cost, the IMF and members will continue along the same path.

We are encouraged by the determination of our euro-area colleagues to do what is needed to resolve the euro-area crisis. We welcome that the IMF stands ready to strongly support this effort as part of its global role.

We are happy that the political leadership really expects something different to happen in spite of trying the same thing all over again.

Today we agreed to act decisively to tackle the dangers confronting the global economy. These include sovereign debt risks, financial system fragility, weakening economic growth and high unemployment. Our circumstances vary, but our economies and financial systems are closely inter-linked. We will therefore act collectively to restore confidence and financial stability, and rekindle global growth.

The advanced economies are at the core of an effective resolution of current global stresses. The strategy is to restore sustainable public finances while ensuring continued economic recovery.

The realities caused by globalization, free trade, wage and environmental arbitrage means that us "rich" countries' economies are once again going in the toilet. Since our populations might realize how much of a con game this all is, today we agreed to spend loads of money we don't have, to extend and pretend the Status Quo.

Taking into account different national circumstances, advanced economies will adopt policies to build confidence and support growth, and implement clear, credible and specific measures to achieve fiscal consolidation.

Even if they can't afford it, "rich" countries will cut taxes for the rich and large corporations, reduce benefits to its most vulnerable populations, and even though both these measures will kill tax revenue and affect GDP negatively, the will somehow get rid of their deficits too.

Euro-area countries will do whatever is necessary to resolve the euro-area sovereign debt crisis and ensure the financial stability of the euro area as a whole and its member states. This includes implementing the euro-area Leaders’ decision of July 21 to increase the flexibility of the European Financial Stability Facility, maximizing its impact, and improve euro-area crisis management and governance.

Euro-area countries, or at least those that aren't bankrupt, will spend more money they don't have, to further fund the EFSF, to buy worthless bonds, just so the Status Quo can go on just a bit longer, all the while making sure rich investors get fully refunded for their worthless investments.

Advanced economies will ensure that banks have strong capital positions and access to adequate funding; maintain accommodative monetary policies as long as this is consistent with price stability, bearing in mind international spillovers; revive weak housing markets and repair household balance sheets; and undertake structural reforms to boost jobs and the medium-term growth potential of their economies.

"Rich" countries will bail out their bankrupt banks with money they don't have, just because we can't let rich investors suffer any losses on bond investments, even though banks lent way to much money. Their central banks will further distort credit markets by maintaining ridiculously low interest rates that wipe out prudent savers. The will also prop up house prices which are still in bubble territory, preventing affordable housing. They will somehow pretend to create jobs with this intervention, even though jobs are actually lost through free trade and job and environmental arbitrage.

Emerging market and developing economies, which have displayed remarkable stability and growth, are also key to an effective global response. The strategy is to adjust macro-economic policies, where needed, to rebuild policy buffers, contain overheating and enhance our resilience in the face of volatile capital flows. Surplus economies will continue to implement structural reforms to strengthen domestic demand, supported by continued efforts that achieve greater exchange rate flexibility, thereby contributing to global demand and the rebalancing of growth. Fostering inclusive growth and creating jobs are priorities for all of us.

China etc. have been providing us nice cheap plastic pumpkins for a while, but now they own us many times over. This needs to change, and this should happen by them dropping their currency pegs. But of course it won't happen, but we won't do anything about it because we can't anger our "rich" countries' populations by increasing the price of laptops and mp3 players.

We reaffirm the importance of the financial sector reform agenda and are committed to its full and timely implementation. We will continue our coordinated efforts to strengthen the regulation of systemically important financial institutions, establish mechanisms for orderly domestic and cross-border resolution of troubled financial institutions, and address risks posed by shadow banking.

We will continue to pretend to reform the banks while bailing them out every time they mess up.

We call on the Fund to play a key role in contributing to an orderly resolution of the current crisis and prevention of future crises. We welcome the Consolidated Multilateral Surveillance Report as an important tool to focus our discussions on key risks and policy issues. We welcome the directions set out in the Managing Director’s Action Plan. In particular, we encourage the Fund to focus on the following priorities and report to the IMFC at our next meeting:
• A more integrated, evenhanded, and effective surveillance framework that better captures risks to economic and financial stability, drawing on the Fund’s Triennial Surveillance Review and spillover reports;
• Early assessment of current financing tools and enhancements to the global financial safety net;
• Review of the adequacy of Fund resources;
• Ensuring adequate policy advice and financing to support low-income countries, including to address volatile food and fuel prices; and
• Further work on a comprehensive, flexible, and balanced approach for the management of capital flows, drawing on country experiences.

We ask the IMF to continue its backing in our support of the Status Quo.

Governance reform is crucial to the legitimacy and the effectiveness of the IMF. We will intensify our efforts to meet the 2012 Annual Meetings target for the entry into force of the 2010 quota and governance reform. We call on the Fund to complete a comprehensive review of the quota formula by January 2013 and to report on progress at our next meeting. We reaffirm the commitment to complete the Fifteenth General Review of Quotas by January 2014. We look forward to further enhancing the role of the IMFC as a key forum for global economic and financial cooperation.

We get that China is starting to get pissed off at the fact its owns a big chunk of SDRs yet has little say in the IMF. We'll think about changing the formula over the next few years.

We thank Mr. Strauss-Kahn and Mr. Lipsky for their outstanding service at the helm of the Fund in difficult times. We warmly welcome Ms. Lagarde, Mr. Lipton, Ms. Shafik, and Mr. Zhu. Our next meeting will be held in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 2012.

Dominique, we threw you out because we didn't like you. Christine is a much better fit for our objectives.

Attendance can be found at http://www.imf.org/external/am/2011/imfc/attendees/index.htm

Avis aux médias: Conférence de presse avec les Verts de l'Outaouais

AVIS AUX MÉDIAS

Conférence de presse avec les Verts de l'Outaouais

Gatineau, Québec, le 18 août 2011 - Roger Fleury, ancien candidat du Parti vert du Canada à Hull-Aylmer, et Jonathan Meijer, ancien candidat du Parti vert du Canada à Gatineau, invitent les médias à se joindre à eux ce samedi.

Dans le cadre d'une épluchette de blé d'Inde, les Verts de l'Outaouais se joindront à Claude Sabourin, chef du Parti vert du Québec, et d'autres membres de l'exécutif du PVQ, pour discuter des enjeux locaux, dont:
- le manque de transport ferroviaire en Outaouais;
- les coupes à blanc dans la réserve faunique la Vérendrye;
- le recyclage versus l'enfouissement des déchets;
- les soins de santé en Outaouais.

QUAND: Le samedi 20 avril 2011, à 14h
OÙ: La Binerie (770 route 105, Kazabazua; environ 5 km au nord du village de Kazabazua)


- 30 -

Renseignements:

Jonathan Meijer
jonny.meijer@gmail.com
Tél: 819-210-4085
Twitter: @jnmeijer


--------------

MEDIA ADVISORY

Press conference with the Outaouais Greens

Gatineau, Québec, August 18, 2011 - Roger Fleury, former Green Party of Canada candidate in Hull-Aylmer, and Jonathan Meijer, former Green Party of Canada candidate in Gatineau, wish to invite the media to join them on Saturday.

The Outaouais Greens will be joined by Claude Sabourin, leader of the Parti vert du Québec, and other PVQ executive members, to discuss local issues, including:
- the lack of rail transport in the Outaouais;
- clear cutting in the Vérendrye wildlife reserve;
- recycling versus landfilling;
- healthcare in the Outaouais.

WHEN: Saturday August 20, 2011, at 2 pm
WHERE: La Binerie (770, Highway 105, Kazabazua; approx. 5 km north of Kazabazua village)


- 30 -

Information:

Jonathan Meijer
jonny.meijer@gmail.com
Tel: 819-210-4085
Twitter: @jnmeijer

A Big Lie: Sustainable Economic Growth

What is "sustainable economic growth"? It is a theoretical concept which suggests that the economy can grow indefinitely.

But first, let's explore what economic growth is: it's when the formal economic activity (the exchange of goods and services through money) increase.

Remember that economic growth is not automatic, but rather has causes behind it.

How does it happen? First, it can happen through an increase in available services and goods; for example, following the availability of electricity, home appliances became widely available.

It can also happen through the formalization of activities traditionally done outside of the formal economy; one can think of buying lunch instead of making it at home, or using daycare instead of having a parent stay at home for the first few years of the children's lives.

Thirdly, an economy can count on the increase in the "consumer" population as a way to increase "consumption". Traditionally, this was done by opening an export market by colonizing. These days, one can only count on an increase in population. If the natural population increase is insufficient to ensure "adequate" economic growth (adequate according to shareholders who often demand 10% year-over-year increase in their dividends), there is always immigration as an alternative measure.

When these options reach a limit in their effectiveness, more consumption can be encouraged through reduced interest rate to push for the spending of savings and encouraging buying on credit.

Recent recessions occurred especially because of excessive debt. The typical solution has been to reduce interest rates, and by extension the cost of borrowing, which only postpones the inevitable (recognizing that many debts will never be repaid), while waiting hopefully that economic growth will enable to carry on a bit longer.

The ultimate problem is simply that Earth is of a finite size, and therefore the availability of natural resources will not allow an infinite economic and consumption growth. Especially since the worldwide peak of oil production occurred in July 2008, one can see that the world economy is struggling to recover. This is only the first visible impact of constraints in availability of natural resources.

All major federal political parties, except the Green Party, have long trumpeted the need for "sustainable economic growth". Though the NDP has recently avoided using the term above, the Green Party is the only party which explicitly accepts that the economy will not grow forever.

When one accepts that sustainable economic growth is a joke and a lie, one easily sees that the traditional "solutions" of government bailouts for auto builders and banks, special purchase and resale agreements of central banks, as well as unusual government measures such as the purchase of NHA mortgage backed securities by CMHC, only prevent the resolution of the true problem: excessive debt. The government should let all bad investments and bankrupt companies fail quickly so as to limit the damage on the real economy, while taking the opportunity to invest in socially important emerging sectors, such as renewable energy with its related green collar jobs.

L'ultime contradiction: croissance économique durable

C'est quoi la "croissance économique durable" ("sustainable economic growth")? C'est un concept théorique qui suggère que l'économie peu croître indéfiniment.

Mais d'abord, c'est quoi la croissance économique? C'est lorsque l'activité économique formelle (l'échange de biens et service par le biais d'argent) augmente.

Rappelons que la croissance économique n'est pas automatique; elle a des causes.

Comment se passe-t-elle? Il y a d'abord moyen d'augmenter les produits et services disponibles; par exemple, suivant la disponibilité de l'électricité, les électroménagers sont apparus en grand nombre.

Ensuite, il y a moyen de formaliser des activités traditionnellement présentes hors de l'économie formelle; on peut penser à pouvoir acheter le dîner au lieu de le préparer à la maison, ou encore recourir à une garderie d'enfants au lieu d'avoir un parent qui demeure à la maison pour surveiller les enfants durant leurs premières années de vie.

Il y a aussi toujours l'augmentation de la population de "consommateurs" comme recours pour augmenter la "consommation". Il y avait traditionnellement l'ouverture des marchés d'exportations, durant l'ère des colonisations. De ce jours-ci, on ne peut plus s'attendre qu'à l'augmentation de la population d'une économie. Si la croissance naturelle de cette population n'est pas assez grande pour assurer une croissance "suffisante" de l'économie (suffisante selon les actionnaires qui exigent souvent des augmentations de dividendes de 10% par an), il y a toujours l'immigration.

Quand on atteint la limite de ces options, il y a moyen d'encourager plus de "consommation" (de la part des "consommateurs") en réduisant les taux d'intérêt afin d'encourager la dépense d'argent économisé, et afin d'encourager la dépense sur crédit.

Les récessions récentes se sont passées surtout car il y avait trop de dette dans le système. La solution typique a été de réduire le taux d'intérêt, et par extension le coût d'emprunt, ce qui ne fait que reporter l'inévitable (reconnaître que bien des dettes ne seront jamais remboursées), en attendant que la croissance économique permette de reprendre le dessus pendant quelques temps.

Le problème ultime est tout simplement que la Terre a une taille finie, et donc que les ressources utilisées ne pourront pas continuer à supporter indéfiniment une croissance économique et une consommation qui ne cesse de croître. Depuis que le monde a atteint le pic de production pétrolière en juillet 2008, on peut voir que l'économie mondiale a bien du mal à se remettre. Cela n'est que le début de l'impact des contraintes des ressources naturelles.

Tous les partis majeurs fédéraux sauf le Parti vert ont longtemps mentionné le besoin d'une croissance économique durable. Sauf pour le NPD qui a récemment évité l'expression, le Parti vert est le seul parti qui accepte explicitement que l'économie ne peut pas croître éternellement.

Quand on accepte que la fiction qu'est la croissance économique durable, on comprend que les "solutions" traditionnelles des gouvernements aux récessions, c'est-à-dire les plans de sauvetage ("bailouts") pour les constructeurs d'automobiles et pour les banques, les prises en pension spéciales des banques centrales, et les mesures spéciales du gouvernement telles que l'achat de titres hypothécaires LNH par la SCHL, ne font qu'empêcher la résolution du problème de dette excessive: il faut plutôt que le gouvernement laisse vite tomber les mauvais investissements et les compagnies en faillite afin de limiter l'impact de la récession sur l'économie réelle, tout en prenant l'occasion d'investir dans des secteurs émergents importants au niveau social, dont l'énergie renouvelable et tous les emplois cols verts qui s'y rattachent.

Refusons les F-35!

Au Parti vert du Canada, nous sommes choyés d'avoir, parmi nos membres et candidats, des anciens militaires haut gradés. J'ai eu donc l'occasion d'avoir de sérieuses discussions pour comprendre le véritable état des choses concernant l'achat potentiel des avions de chasse F-35.

Selon mes sources, le processus de décision du Ministère de la défense nationale concernant l'achat de tel équipement est méthodique. La décision se fait principalement sur quatre axes: le coût, la performance, l'horaire de livraison, et la compensation par l'industrie.

Le coût des avions F-35 est au départ déjà trop élevé. De plus, le fait que le gouvernement américain insiste que les avions coûteront plus cher que ce que Stephen Harper répète, indique aussi que le coût réel n'est même pas encore su.

Question performance, le fait que les F-35 doivent être non-détectables au radar les limitent beaucoup. Par exemple, les bombes ne peuvent pas être montées sous l'avion sinon il serait détectable. La distance franchissable est aussi fort limitée, à environ 2500 km, alors que selon Harper, le but est de patrouiller l'immense territoire arctique du Canada; cela indique qu'il faudrait aussi acheter bien des avions de ravitaillement, qui ne sont présentement pas inclus dans le coût total. S'il n'était pas important de rester invisible au radar, les F-35 ne présenteraient aucun avantage par rapport aux avions existants du même genre.

Troisièmement, l'horaire de livraison du F-35 est loin d'être finalisé; les retards ne cessent d'être annoncés. Dès qu'il est question d'acheter un avion qui n'est pas encore prêt, il y a des grands risques de ne pas recevoir l'équipement à temps, qu'ils aient besoin de modifications peu après la livraison, et que les coûts estimés sont vite dépassés.

Finalement, il est pratiquement garanti que le Canada n'aura pas sa juste part des contrats de manufacture pour les pièces des F-35. Cela rend donc l'industrie du Canada perdante.

On me dit qu'il y a des avions de chasse qui sont bien moins chers, plus performants et déjà prêts pour la production, si ce sont bien des avions de chasse que l'on veut.

Mais considérant les grandes distances de l'Arctique canadien, s'il nous est bien nécessaire de patrouiller le territoire nordique, il faudrait plutôt s'équiper de véhicules aériens sans pilote, qui coûtent environ 22 million $ par avion, qui existent déjà, et qui peuvent voler facilement 24 heures avant de devoir faire le plein.

En conclusion, on voit facilement que l'option F-35 mérite un gros F comme note. Je dis souvent de ne jamais sous-estimer la puissance de l'incompétence, mais considérant que personne, même pas la Défense nationale, ne veut de ces avions sauf M. Harper, il faut se demander si quelqu'un profiterait personnellement de l'achat de ces avions.