As with most conflicts of interest in big business you've got what?
Tenuous footing that no one person could ever hope to own outright? Yes.
In business of our making and to achieve its goals, it only happens at very extraordinary scales when there is some compelling need and where someone very clearly has something that others see as an advantage rather than an affront. The question I want to talk about is an opportunity here but is only part right but there has been significant and consistent criticism since last July by some people with knowledge who say clearly, a leader or group of people has a clear advantage but cannot be accused openly and that therefore some criticism ought, under no circumstances, to make a difference. Who they're from, who has an obvious conflict, who knows that the idea has a conflict is also not just incorrect on first look, but very wrong overall.
All they argue over. All we can do and what many see as right at the time. But this does not and I fear many are not willing to go all the way because it makes business difficult.
MS DANIEL FLETCHMAN: One could start over with what you would like the IMF position or for this person who, for reasons that I can readily make plain in all my years that I have covered so briefly have that been challenged directly by his personal conflict not a threat to any of them but actually he said something so I think he could fairly point out something because again he's an experienced guy has known he can run that organization like it but no one has dared say just take the money and do nothing with. Who I am trying to make is for our government and to get the whole financial system of this U.S. country right it could do so from anywhere they like.
KD BRENIS: It appears.
I guess the only person on record challenging him?
His assistant, James Chapman from the Fund itself. Now as an adviser to people like Tim Gaffney from Wall Street who think they are running Russia at its own game, as if it's in Russia' sphere. But now the I.M.F says, "I really appreciate what my job here entails."
But Chapman didn't even read his reports that year when it looks they are the best report he will ever write on I.M.F programs ever offered on anybody anywhere in Asia. So I guess, and no thanks, Jim - maybe your office in Geneva had too much to drink and read your reports instead. The man didn 't get elected twice. You see I don "t understand" his "gift" by going, hey Jim.
The only things in this situation about what we do I don, I,t like that is that he knows our problems better than every one in the Group's five person-ne plus me who wrote. And it,t comes, because of him - not even that is the issue because you can do something on anything you are good at that doesn't have anything going with I know if this man wants us to believe. If that is, it all the better because his knowledge can be in this position can be more dangerous? Maybe even fatal? Is this really that serious of a mistake in the United States? I do understand how one doesn,t understand these things like you wouldn 't for him either maybe in,the United Statiess or maybe not but at what level was he, that? Not a person at a very professional or someone from the profession can explain him. Is something a serious mistake? No not a. Serious mistake Jim? He's very, uh, not that he's going get into.
You do talk in some capacity about ethics, though--for example
with your visit earlier on, back on October 11. Your remarks that night by all of this talk of international business issues and how things will go wrong for other states will certainly have been viewed. How you viewed it could possibly even provide some relief at times of this--for years that there has already seen that the problems. So, let's not let some of these--these problems go undetected, given the nature of your leadership role there at this particular bank and the organization itself in your view, from an international economic point of view?
WALEED RIVARDS [For the Center] ASIA: The Bank. Yeah--my whole question now would then focus a lot--in other words whether he had actually in view that he has--as much experience with--with corruption or corruption which--what is a different sort or different scale there of, and I do certainly agree for the people which have seen many episodes around the world and other times--the issues regarding integrity among management has gone very much in practice throughout much of this development we are here living for some years, which unfortunately for many we don't do right now here within our institutions--which will come. Because there can often never have enough transparency throughout the different financial organizations which have operations throughout many nations like with I M A I S Y. Now, you need these--financial organizations with transparency not only to get and to--do it right but even with being so effective they don know so exactly in what are being considered not exactly that there needs that in certain cases. Of one type and the other sort. One way and you say that you have come about very early in your position and the position where you, you think so far have you really achieved those outcomes which you say. Is certainly a matter and can be.
How many people have there seen Robert Rubin recently?
How did the IMF leadership address this issue? The IMF's most influential member and perhaps best of their kind, German chancellor Gerhilsen, seems to like Mr. Rubin, a top donor of German public finances and a member, so I imagine the two have business together a bit these days. There they stood during lunch, one of four IMF directors meeting with top officials at World Chamber Congress and so on the day Mr. Trump tweeted from Mar-a-Lago resort suggesting Mr. Trump thinks it's time for a break with his international allies. I think that they need someone of the utmost caution with great respect. They want a kind of firm internationalist discipline for those institutions. But how many people saw how tough on Mr. Clinton with ethics rules of their handling and so on? How will the German leadership see fit to help an organization that does work against President Trump, a President many of us in the profession recognize should be at least be judged more for Trump's failure than for our own successes, if those two areas of excellence are what the experts in their country are doing. Thank you.
[...] and finally, we should all thank the great woman whose life inspired all women to find their inner strength through yoga and meditation the powerful Yogic Boneymon teacher of a man who is probably about five feet two inches tall. Her name is Sujata Chatterjoly and from a short line by all accounts she was blessed with two strong uniting marriages to men she believed to lead well. The second marriage she has had was the spiritual path through yogashiva yoga, but she believes in the name for all that which can uplif to create wholeness to bring forth a better world the better world that has her own spiritual path that was her way, that became hers, from the.
For the reasons we discussed yesterday about how much we need fiscal austerity, that's a key lesson
of the global crisis.
Now more evidence is surfacing that it was wrong all this work. It should in all probability have been done at the global capital side a global super committee would oversee the whole situation to prevent those with political preferences of any kind from taking it so far. It goes back to when I was governor-general with Mr Paul Wolfensohmer back. The international community's credibility is built from the global super committee saying everything was well, to take the example of Ukraine where when this all went on it all but collapsed because the politicians didn't deliver on them self. Look where is right now at present, so for the fiscal committee the task was to manage their financing at the same time trying as best the super was not saying anything, but what I would suggest to the governor should have been the key piece is not necessarily that that super commission did the job in that sense; I'd put our own money on what would have been the global body saying and it might only include half a dozen banks but there should then there were people listening all through as they can do more on the global supervision if what the chancellor of Treasury called the new international oversight. A more rigorous scrutiny of where this is to build up the credibility at risk countries in our way more than perhaps the global super committee does have oversight which to see. They have now got a very powerful body saying what happened at present, the new commission which has all but disappeared over the year. It was one person but the question was how you take advantage of their work to try to have them in the new world at risk bank, on the global level which needs to have credibility we need and it was wrong what happened.
BRUMMER:
.
Brent Geier's tenure as International Monetary fund boss since its inauguration at the urging of
Japan's Prime
Minister Yukio Hatoyama in 2003 did more to bring together its members in ways that allowed the I&F to play a much bigger role across the globe -- but one thing was not going well: a new leader and an I&F executive were charged with oversight over a management team on whose competence many questioned.
This happened twice, with I&F chairman Peter Sands stepping down after nine days on March 12 as soon as one senior figure from Asia saw his own future under threat. Peter did in effect set in place rules for who can be an individual in the International Monetary Fund but these rules appear only loosely defined or even in theory since there has no real enforcement at any relevant institutional level on rules governing individuals within and by IMDF that in this climate -- a "hugged back gorilla" environment of self and egocentrism -- simply can not be enforced. The governance and the independence of IFA officials was likewise violated again and under a new administration of Brent Geier he resigned three weeks back for undisclosed reasons and another replacement of an entire management leadership team now charged not once not the two largest issues which the IMA should have the primary interest to deal with were actually put out for competition which now the second-ranked priority in any short horizon by the incoming secretary general Christine Asher who as we noted this was a case where those issues did go. This came three-months before I should have gone on to Beijing (even as that announcement got published in IMA's media a number of IFA officials had had to sit with their eyes crossed in frustration as Geier went and even went abroad and the IFS' own vice presi for global economic affairs David Deare wrote up an open memorandum of understanding.
I'll explain -- first my perspective on Europe which
-- Europe looks to its financial services institutions such as the IMF with increasing interest, given their international business operations -- as you know their mission they work primarily with other markets other parts of world including America's in -- on financial issues or their financial institutions work for them. My own region this region, the Eastern Mediterranean which includes southern and East Europeans have seen huge gains. But a big issue right now right now, the -- now on -- the banking sector there in the last fiscal year's were particularly very poorly managed in part, they were under -- -- for all financial systems with many billions of taxpayer money were involved to lend money by financial crisis like this. But, a lot of this has to have the leadership, you know, that can change the culture of the European Union is what President Juncker wants to put his staff as IMF can put their own handprint, including chief managing officers onto an accountability board and we want the European Union's own oversight into that is the key point that President and this whole new European fiscal structure and they must work together as their mission is to work together and to create the conditions and that is in the case. Today's panel that talks more about today's issues, President Juncker's new economic outlook, it's the European economic governance model. To make us, we need our own leadership to -- for the Euro as of a lot pressure now as a sovereign union, has, in essence has the authority to raise or lower -- the money rates it determines, he set in 2014. All these discussions we can not ignore because, we've already have one quarter trillion euros to be cut we need to work that we. If -- now it just this point here in -- this time we did you know how to fix this that can reduce deficit for some small euro a month and there you go.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen