Bush's administration, in a stroke of characteristic hubris, insisted that other countries submit themselves to the IMF for audits about the openness and/or transparency of the country's banking systems, but absolutely refused to allow for the same thing to happen in the US.
That is until the IMF agreed on ONE condition.
That condition?
That it not start until the last year of the Bush presidency, AND that it not be concluded until AFTER he left the White House.
http://www.gata.org/node/6399
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport...hanieflanders/
(I can provide a few more links if needed)
All of this leaves a rather cogent question:
What would have happened had that study been done in, say, 2004-2005 and the weaknesses of our banking system been brought to light a few years earlier?
Ooops.
This one can't be blamed on any bad ol' Democrat in congress, and can arguably be chalked up to a Republican administration playing politics.
I cannot know what the Bush administration's motives were for delaying the study, and making sure that it only come out AFTER Bush was out of office, but it is probably not too hard to guess that they wanted to delay any potentially embarassing points until after the election.
Our financial future sacrificed on the altar of Republican politicking.
(original source article at the German magazine der Spiegel)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...562291,00.html
I remember reading this and posting the article at one point, but now it seems to be a bit more of an important, doesn't it?For seven years, US President George W. Bush refused to allow the IMF to conduct its assessment. Even now, he has only given the IMF board his consent under one important condition. The review can begin in Bush's last year in office, but it may not be completed until he has left the White House. This is bad news for the Fed chairman.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-20-2009 at 04:52 PM.
Accountability for thee, but not for me. A point of guile. Ingenious, really..
Leave Obama to plead for an exception for himself, when the IMF comes knocking. After all, his predecessor got one. Or he can just give in and open the books. It looks bad either way. Obama can't win.
Damn that guy was a horrible president.
Mt. Rushmore awaits.
What transparency is needed now? Isn't it pretty obvious that we're ed?
Actually Obama has, I believe, stated that his administration will comply with what is left of the audit. This was my impression from reading the "stephanomics" blog entry at the economist.
Either way the audit was started last year, and is likely in its closing stages if that is the case.
We are, but an objective look/analysis from people who do that for a living might prove helpful for future policy-making.
It is not enough to know how the car broke down, we have to know how to fix it.
Why do you believe those weaknesses would have been brought to light? None of those weaknesses were exclusive from the US financial system; has the IMF figured them out in any other inspection?
What makes you believe that in 2003 the IMF would conduct an overall examination of the entire financial system? That's not what they generally do. But, more importantly, why do you believe they'd find out anything when nobody else did?
There always were plenty of regulations and regulatory ins utions. The problem is that regulation is always effective to prevent the financial crisis that already happened.
Yes, they have pointed out a lot of weaknesses especially in terms of transparency in other countries.
That is what they do for a living, and I would assume they are pretty good at evaluating banking systems.
darn, I thought this would be about vet health care.
Start a thread, if you care so much.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
