Do as I say, not as I do...., The IMF in practice

www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2013/CAR111213A.htm

You might imagine that the situation in the Middle East is complicated, and even, for the oil producing states, economically different from everywhere else. You might imagine that this would lead to different economic policy needs than those required by other countries. But you would be wrong, if the IMF is to be believed. The link is to their Middle East survey.

Seems that growth in the middle east countries has fallen because of the global recession and a fall in the demand for oil (as an aside, did you notice the fall in the costs of fuel and power which ought to have attended that - I didn't). Growth in those countries is now projected to fall to 2.25%. The long term average in most places when there is not a recession is somewhere around 3% and the UK is hailing a recovery on growth of less than 1% this year. But 2.25% is a problem in this part of the forest. Fortunately it is a self correcting problem (if you believe the IMF) because they "project" that this will pick up next year. That wouldn't give me any comfort if I was one of those countries, because the IMF are always wrong. But leave that aside.

They also say that the oil producing nations mostly
. You might think that any nation dependent on a primary commodity which is diversifying successfully is on the right track, if economic growth is your holy grail. But no, apparently not. Though even the IMF is a bit hesitant about telling those nations what to do: so the body of the text does not justify the headline. Indeed the first indication that these are nutters is the fact that the survey lumps oil producing nations in with oil importing nations in that region. That may make sense politically: it does not make sense economically. And that tells you something about this body, which purports to be impartial and expert in giving economic advice. Particularly when you notice they also include Pakistan. Last time I looked Pakistan was not in the middle east: it is, however, an islamic country..... Coincidence? I think not. For they also include Afghanistan...

One quote from them made me laugh out loud when I read it on twitter


Well if they have a death wish, that makes sense: but only if they have a death wish

The report then turns to oil importers. Seems that difficult politics and the civil war in Syria is weighing on their "confidence". Well I imagine it is. If the neighbours are killing each other and refugees are flooding in to your country; if the conflicts which cause them to kill each other are also part of your own political landscape, that would indeed make you a bit anxious, I would think. No argument there.

But then comes the fancy footwork. Apparently the oil importers policy priorities include
. No quote in the article to show that any or all of them have actually said that. It is so close to the IMF dogma that one wonders whose policy priorities these actually are? There is a clue in the same paragraph
. Not the governments of the region, then. And yo will note that there is no increase in public spending -just reallocation coupled with hot money from abroad. That has always worked out so well.....

And why is this necessary? Well the headline says that it is because
. Orly? As noted they say that growth will fall to 2.25%. Only, there is a table in the report which does not say that at all. That figure does not appear in the table anywhere. To achieve it you have to make a projection (and the IMF is happy to do that even though their track record is spectacularly poor) and you have to lump the middle east together (with Pakistan and Afghanistan) though their economies are very different. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, anyone?

Actual growth figures are for 2012. Oil exporters' growth is 5.4%: Oil importers' is 3%. Growth is good in the oil exporting countries and is expected to recover from a temporary drop in oil revenues back to where it was before the recession. All is well then? Nope


So there we have it. Countries which are experiencing no growth have to make fiscal cuts. Countries which are flatlining have to make fiscal cuts. Countries which are growing have to make fiscal cuts. And that means cutting wages. They soften this by the usual "targeting" rhetoric to give the impression that the poorest will be protected. We know what that means


So Middle Eastern countries (including Pakistan and Afghanistan) are recommended to create jobs and put in safety nets for the poor: cut spending and raise revenues; and implement structural reforms to create a better climate for business. I wonder which of those inherently contradictory prescriptions would take priority for the IMF? There is yet another clue


I love that phrase "technical assistance"! So there is not political agenda here at all: it is just technical. Technically Pakistan and Afghanistan are part of the middle east, apparently....

www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/03/furceri.htm

The IMF finds that lack of capital controls leads to increased inequality of income etc. But as ever, that does not lead them to abandon their policy prescription. And, as usual, the benefits which accrue in theory are not really elaborated. But they are definitely there: no question: never doubt it. So the conclusion is carry on doing it, even though it is always detrimental (though less in some economies than others): but do it carefully. That way your losses will be less (though still losses) and the benefits they fantasise might be "more likely" to materialise. Though they never actually have.

https://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2016/03/22/...ter/#more-11942

Another piece of dogma driven fuckwittery from the IMF. Water is underpriced and this is a very bad thing.

The piece is the usual tissue of neoliberal assertion, with the cliches to the fore as always. We get "tragedy of the commons" and we get "misallocation of resources" But most entertaining is "demand outstrips supply" and this is a a clear sign that water is underpriced. Only on planet neolib.

Note that the same analysis applies to India and California. Note that in California , drought and unprecedently high temperatures played a part in water shortage, but underpricing also "played a role". Orly?

What I liked best, though was this part


Where is that going to come from, then? Will some supreme being be dead pleased with a price rise and so make more?

Breathtakingly blinkered. As always.