Could this be the first sign of the ancestral spirits getting their man?
It takes a lot of self destruction and evil levels of pauperisation for anyone to please the IMF. The worst is still to come.

who is imf. we don't need any of these bodies approval to run things in our country   

yeah yeah, same IMF supported SAP too

I hope we are not heading to SAP- episode II.

IMF?

How I now miss Abacha?

IMF means trouble that should be avoided at all cost.

hehehehe. . . . so IMF is the enemy?

IMF also validates all Ghanaian economic actions and holds Ghana up as the benchmark for all subsaharan African countries. I guess IMF are also trying to ensure Ghanas downfall as well.

Ibime:

hehehehe. . . . so IMF is the enemy?

IMF also validates all Ghanaian economic actions and holds Ghana up as the benchmark for all subsaharan African countries. I guess IMF are also trying to ensure Ghanas downfall as well.

Did any state that IMF is the enemy?

Google Haiti or in fact google IMF and failed economies.

IMF! again!
wetin concern IMF with my country?
Pls i need abacha to take over proceedings now!

IMF is bad news. It is evil!

They are not charity but out to make 'MONEY' for their owners: WEST!

Listen to them at your own peril.

I wonder why they are not talking to Libya!!!

More to the point: What has IMF told the West in the aftermath of the banking crises?

1. Britain will bailout its banks to the tune of 195 Billion pounds (estimate) by the time this recessionis over.
2. No banker has gone to prison in the last one year for the collapse
3. Bankers are being IMPLORED to be prudent
4. Bankers are NOT listening. GoldmanSachs will be paying huge bonuses this year.
5. Banks are still NOT lending to small business but declaring profits based on taxpayers funds injected into them (quantitative easing, )
6. I have never seen a list of debtors published for banks in the west. NO BANK OR FINANCIAL REGULATOR HAS PUBLISHED A LIST OF ITS NON PERFORMING LOANS, NOT EVER, IF YOU'RE NOT SERVICING YOUR LOAN, THATS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD SORT OUT WITH YOUR BANK! NOT SPLASHED ON THE PAGES OF NEWSPAPERS BY THE FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN!

I have not read a single IMF report about how the west is not doing enough to address this issue once for all. The structure remains as it was before the collapse, nothing's changed,

IMF, Fitch, Standard and Poor, they've all shown themselves to be totally inadequate. Should we be listening to them, erm, NOT BEFORE, NOT NOW.

Afam:

Did any state that IMF is the enemy?

Google Haiti or in fact google IMF and failed economies.

Thank you Afam.
Infact soludo once said that the recession being experienced by economic superpowers now ,is the clearest reference to the irrelevance of bodies like IMF and world bank in our day.

Sanusi is a hasty decision taker, he has goofed, i'm sure he will accept this if u c him one on one to ask him.

here we go again, IMF?



Nigeria Is Blessed!

When we don't take care of ourselves, someone else will do for us

Nonsense!!!!

and ingredents

first check the headline "very friendly" imf.so what do u expect from a man like sanusi? from what he has done so far,u cant see that the man cant even locate his dick with a 5000 watts bulb not to talk of organizing the nija banking sector. am still skeptical on where he is going.surely mr sanusi is trying to please someone and with his friends endorsing him now,his head will be ready to explode and he will go to unthinkable lenghts. what happened to the management and staff of Lehmans brothers that brought this world financial meltdown in the first place? visionless.

International financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have failed in many ways, including by strictly adhering to the belief that all developing countries will benefit from the same solutions, no matter how different their internal challenges are.


“It has proven pretty disastrous to use the same solutions for every country,” he said.

IFIs also got it wrong about the financial markets.

“They said, ‘Let the market run on its own.’ But we’ve learned that the global economy and national economies need to be managed,”

“If we are going to eradicate poverty, address global climate change, and protect human rights, we can’t cling to ideologically based assertions.

“We need to accept that governments and citizens need to manage economies so that they deliver the outcomes we want.”

While there have been some positive changes at IFIs in the past 20 years -– largely due to NGOs and social movements playing a watchdog role -– there are still more changes needed.

“People only get serious about change when it is categorically obvious to everyone that the system has failed, and the global economic system has definitely failed,”

Simply put, the current structure of governance of the world economy doesn’t work because it isn’t democratically accountable. Additionally, to make more positive changes, world leaders need to set objectives for IFIs that are concrete, equitable and measureable.

According to Griffiths, the key to reforms can be summed up in two words: citizen participation. He says things would begin to change if people around the world stopped accepting “pat answers” from their government leaders and started asking critical questions such as,

1) “What kinds of global financial institutions are needed in the 21st century?

2) Why didn’t the IMF warn the world that there were trade imbalances and lack of regulation in financial markets that could cause global economic problems?

3)Are World Bank policies really helping eradicate poverty or are they making it worse?”

Questions like these are necessary on a global scale, Griffith says, because “we’re all in this together.”

culled from Jesse Griffiths' address to the G-20 Leaders
"The global economy needs to be managed."

Beaf:

Wherever the IMF has gone, wretchedness has never been far behind. This is not a friend to have!

http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=154608

So is the world bank, they (IMF and World Bank) are both corrupt institutions.

they save the interest of the western countries only

imf imf imf - no no no!!! this guys r bad news period!!!

See wetin IMF don cause oooooooooooo:

Why Has the IMF Failed Its Mission?

Economist and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that the IMF has failed its mission to secure global economic stability. He identifies the reasons for this failure with changes in the IMF’s mission and economic policies.



Economist and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that many of the problems with the current phase of economic globalization can be laid at the feet of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In his role as Senior Vice President and Chief Economist at the World Bank in the late 1990s, Stiglitz was privy to the policies and failures of the IMF.

In his book, Globalization and Its Discontents, Stiglitz lays out an argument for why the IMF has failed in its mission to ensure global economic stability.

Betrayal of Its Initial Mission

While the IMF’s initial mission was based on the assumption that markets did not always work perfectly—that is, there were times when intervention, however limited, might be needed to secure a stable global economic order—Stiglitz argues that that philosophy has changed. Now, says Stiglitz, the IMF operates largely on the untenable ideology that markets should be left to operate on their own, and that no (or very little) direction or intervention is needed.

This, argues Stiglitz, is not only a betrayal of the ideas underlying the IMF’s inception, but it is simply bad economics. The underlying belief at the creation of the IMF was that, in times of crisis, the IMF should foster expansionary economic policy—for instance, encouraging or enabling increased expenditures, lower taxes, lower interest rates—in order to stimulate the economy. In short, a country’s populace would have more money available and so increase their purchasing, thereby stimulating the economy. Now, says Stiglitz, the IMF has adopted exactly the opposite approach: providing funds for countries only if they institute contractionary policies such as cutting deficits, raising taxes, and raising interest rates.

Whereas the IMF’s initial goal was to bring a country in crisis back as close to full employment of it’s workforce as possible, it has dramatically changed course. The change of course, Stiglitz puts flatly, makes it “clear that the IMF has failed in its mission.”

Bad Economic Policies

Stiglitz argues that the IMF’s policies not only do not work, but often make matters worse for the countries in crisis. He notes several misdirected policies:

    * Capital market liberalization. The IMF pressures countries that petition for IMF loans to open their markets to outside investment capital. Rather than help matters, this approach often makes matters worse as it destabilizes the economy of the country as well as the global economy. Investors may invest huge sums in a country only to pull those investments at a moment’s notice, causing acute economic crises.
    * Latin America as the template. Stiglitz says that many of the the ideas of the “Washington Consensus” were based on the experience with Latin America. The economic growth in these countries had not been sustained, governments had let budgets run out of control, and loose monetary policy had led to rampant inflation. The belief of the Washington Consensus was that this had happened as a result of excessive government intervention in the economy. So, if government intervention was the problem, then government intervention should be limited. The Washington Consensus pushed for policies such as capital market liberalization. Stiglitz notes that even if this approach was appropriate for some Latin American countries, it did not make sense to apply this policy blindly to other countries in very different situations where this kind of policy might make matters much worse.
    * Insensitivity to strength of local markets. Stiglitz says that the IMF policy forcing rapid trade liberalization has not only not worked, but does not follow lessons learned from history. He notes the cases of the U.S. and Japan. Both countries had trade protection policies in place until their industries were strong enough to compete in a global market. However, IMF policies forcing trade liberalization on a developing country where industries are not strong enough can actually cause more harm. Local industries could not compete, and rising interest rates made job creation virtually impossible. Says Stiglitz, “Liberalization has, thus, too often, not been followed by the promised growth, but my increased misery.”

Taxation without Representation

Stiglitz notes that even though the IMF is a public institution, funded by money from taxpayers around the world, it is not held accountable to the interests of these taxpayers. He identifies the problem of governance as one of the prime “underlying factors” for problems with the IMF.

Stiglitz says that the IMF reports to ministers of finance and central banks around the world thatare in many ways insulated from the concerns of the IMF’s ultimate constituency: the global populace. Stiglitz notes that control of the IMF is accomplished through a complicated set of voting arrangements based in large part on the economic influence of the member countries. Additionally, the U.S. has effective veto power over IMF decisions.

Stiglitz says that the IMF (and later, the World Bank as it was reduced to a “junior partner” with the IMF) was driven by the collective will of the G-7 (the governments of the seven most advanced industrial countries). Open, democratic debate over IMF policies and procedures would threaten the influence of these industrial giants, which would clearly not be in their best interests. So, say Stiglitz, the current drivers of IMF policy see it in their best interest to avoid democratic accountability and dialogue.

According to Stiglitz, the IMF is dominated not merely by wealthy, industrialized nations, but—more narrowly—by the commercial and financial interests within those countries. Stiglitz says that the fact that the IMF draws on public funds to forward the interests of a select few—with no effective voice in the IMF’s policies, amounts, in his words, to “taxation without representation.”

More on this http://www.mott.org/news/news/2009/G20.aspx

sanusi must be careful with imf because there mission,suggest and support had not favor nigeria.

IMF? does anybody still respect this stinking institution.

who will now back SAM EGWU in the ongoing ASUU strike

IMF & Sanusi

birds of the same feather always flock together

nothing new there

You guys are on some revisionist history campaign.

The IMF didn't lead to the downfall of haiti. poor governance led to it's downfall.

The will gladly give Nigeria a rope so that we can hang ourselves

IMF or no IMF, as Nigerians, what do we think of Sanusi's banking reforms? Has he done d right thing or not? dat should be d issue at hand. We dont need IMF approval for us to know what is healthy for smooth operation of our banks.

IMF?

na wa oo

which backing should be authentic, IMF or fellow Nigerian?

why will they not back him up,business as usual for IMF,more fund to borrow then huge interest rate coming later.