Because Lagarde is a bad choice.

Because Lagarde is a bad choice.

A strange phenomenon takes place in the West, whereby if you put a woman at the head of something no one looks at her past, her abilities or her results, for the simple reason that one looks only at the fact that she is a woman. It is true that politics is a branch of aesthetics, but we must remember that reality does what it wants, while narrative must remain realistic.

This is the case of Lagarde (it must always be remembered that she is a woman), who was named head of the ECB, and everyone said "how nice, she has a womb". I congratulate you on the choice of Lagarde, since she has a very elegant uterus (as befits a French madame of her rank), but the problem is that when you run the ECB, the uterus is of little use.

Not that Lagarde (who, it is always good to remember, is a woman) has not had important tasks. I am absolutely certain of this fact, but having an important job is not enough, we must also complete it well. Because Schettino (who is not a woman) also had an important position, but it cannot be said that he completed it well.

Therefore, we need to get an idea of ​​Lagarde's work (which is good to remember: she is a woman) at the IMF, the international monetary fund. Here, the problem is that I can't find signs of success. I mean, if I'm looking for a financial crisis that Lagarde (I take the opportunity to point out that she is a woman) has solved, a country I have saved, anything that has improved because of Lagarde's choices or strategies (which , let's not forget, she is a woman).

Here, the trouble is that the "success story" is quite lacking. We cannot find a single case of a financial crisis of some kind that Lagarde (I would like to point out that she is a woman) has solved (brilliantly or not).

To tell the truth, looking at the progress of the Argentine crisis (largely managed by the IMF), one would say that Lagarde (I have already said that she is a woman?) Has a rather peculiar style of "management" :

throw a lot of money on the problem, impose financial recipes of the last century, and if it doesn't work, blame it on the local government.

Oh, I'm sure the Argentine government (I note that "govern" is masculine) has its wrongs, but given the amount of money that the IMF has thrown on Argentina by now the roads should smell of bergamot . And if we consider that the economic recipes have caused disasters such as to push the populations into revolt for starvation, I doubt that perhaps a slice of the fault is also the IMF. Moreover, if it happens once the IMF imposes its recipe, the population rebels and elects a Peronist, another failure arrives, the IMF still imposes its recipe, the population rebels and elects a Peronist, another arrives failure, COCK, BUT THE THIRD RIDE YOU CAN EVEN AVOID, EH?

Because Lagarde is a bad choice.

So, since the style of command consists in making and redoing the same mistake, and then blaming the local government and myopic voters, I am a little worried to hear Lagarde (I take this opportunity to highlight that she is a woman) to say that she will never pronounce the phrase "whatever it takes" because first of all the local governments must think about it, and then, if anything, the ECB.

Because Lagarde is a bad choice.

It almost seems that Lagarde (it never hurts to remember that she is a woman) is getting her hands on, saying that I know "in the coming crisis I will do nothing, because local governments must do it, and if something it goes wrong then I will blame them ".

But let's stop thinking too badly, and let's try to think that Lagarde is right (it should always be remembered that she is a woman). Then, the crisis comes (one is coming) and all European countries must resolve it with their means.

Now there is a problem: that solving a crisis is a common goal. And if 27 European governments have to move to resolve the crisis, they must work towards a common goal. I don't know if you've ever tried to work 27 people for a common goal. No? Well, I do. And I can tell you that we need "orchestration", that is, we need everyone to do their job so that it is useful to others, that does not hinder others, and that it is consistent with the final objective.

This cannot happen by chance: if you leave 27 nations to make public spending to get out of the crisis, everyone will do it in the sector that pays more electorally . The trouble is that Germany could push on a sector that is then favored against Italian or French competitors. If we want to ensure that Germany invests WITHOUT artificially reinforcing the competitors of Italian industries, that France invests without strengthening its agriculture against the Iberian one, and so on, there must be an orchestrator: an institution or a person who directs efforts towards the goal.

So, if Lagarde (never forget that she is a woman) says that governments have to do more, it would be good to also indicate the orchestrator of this internal economic action, since in the EU there is no institution that have the mandate to do so.

If it is not clear who would orchestrate this action, the words of Lagarde (which historians will remember as a woman) are more terrifying than anything else.

To say that the ECB will intervene only AFTER the states have done the maximum for the common good, WITHOUT indicating who the orchestrator of this effort is, means to envisage a crisis in which all governments will be left to react in random order. The recipe for a disaster.

And on the ruins of this disaster, then the ECB will arrive, which will not miss the chance to blame the states.

Because Lagarde is a bad choice.

If the recipe of Lagarde (which is a woman at the registry office) is that of having an ECB waiting for the intervention of the states (and waiting for it to show its effects) before intervening, without specifying who is to direct the intervention towards a common good, well, it presented itself badly and everything makes us think badly.

I read about satisfied people because they say "with Lagarde (which I would exclude being a man, logically) Germany will have to invest". Of course he will do it: but since the ruling parties want to be elected, they will invest in sectors that bring maximum benefits to German voters, those who vote for the "eligible" parties for a government: CDU, CSU, SPD and VERDI.

It's easy to see which infrastructures we are talking about: schools, police, local public transport, army, welfare and pensions. Perhaps to please the Bavarians also agriculture and to make Siemens happy, wind power to suck. Maybe even the highways. Could this push German GDP up? Yes. Is the import of products from the rest of the EU increasing? One chip of nothing.

Same thing if you spend the French government: invest in agriculture, financial services, energy (nuclear) and defense. Do you know what you can do in other European countries? Anything.

It should be an orchestrator on a European scale to direct the efforts towards the common goal: to use this expense to get all of Europe out of the crisis, but such an orchestrator does not exist . No entity can go to governments to write the financial dictating the strategy.

In short, all there is to say about Lagarde is simple: she is a woman.

For the rest, only the perfect recipe for a disaster emerges from his words.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.