Even though I try to keep a close eye on the money people, I’d never heard of the IMF. And I’d certainly never heard of its leader, who was spoken of by the reporters as if he were an icon. It was said repeatedly that he was widely considered to be a strong contender to be the next president of France. I had no idea.
Anyhow, I looked up the IMF, and here, according to the Web site, is how the organization describes itself:
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an organization of 187 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.
In those 36 words there is more wiggle room than you will find in the U.S. Constitution. Let’s start with the number. Though estimates vary, the number of countries in the world at the moment appears to be somewhere between 190 and 195. So what countries are not part of the organization?
Then we’re off to three fantastically flexible words: foster, monetary and cooperation. The IMF is working to foster monetary cooperation. What in the hell is that? When I pay my taxes is that a form of monetary cooperation? And by paying am I thereby fostering or is someone fostering on my behalf? I recently transferred some funds from a dormant retirement account in what’s known as an “IRA Rollover Account,” which is not only linguistically amusing but which also pays dividends quarterly based on a “Moderate/Aggressive” investment strategy. When my account is credited with those dividends, has monetary cooperation been fostered? If so – or if not – who makes the call? Who knows?
Financial stability. There’s a good one. Financial stability for whom? When thousands are laid off and then, six months later, what’s left of the news industry reports that the company’s CEO earned 22 percent more this year than he did last year, is that financial stability? I have a savings account – on paper anyhow. Is that financial stability? What if I withdraw all of it and move it to another bank? What if someone – singular or otherwise – decides to stop purchasing things that are, for the time being, unnecessary? Is that person or group a threat to financial stability? And if so, what’s to be done about it? What’s to be done, in other words, to “secure” financial stability? After all, that’s part of the IMF’s mission, according to its Web site. Secure is a very, very interesting word, I think.
I could go on like this for hours.
But back to the guy who was accused of raping the maid in the hotel. He was sent off to a pretty rough jail, which horrified many people. The maids came out in full force to demonstrate their disgust, which gave me hope, briefly: Minority women, some of them perhaps unsanctioned immigrants, on the television sets with banners and voices and fists in the air. The main question during that particular news flurry seemed to go along these lines: Do you think the French guy’s wife knew that he was screwing around in hotel rooms halfway around the world? Well, that’s a touchy subject. It’s understood, according to many of those quoted, that politicians in certain European countries are more likely than not to have something going on in addition to their marriage. This is offensive to many of us in the U.S., so I heard, but in places like France and Italy it’s not really a deal breaker.
Some deal, though, was broken because two really strange things happened next. The first is that the guy from France was excused from the court room because it was revealed that the accuser had some serious character issues. (This story is full of loaded phraseology, and there’s another one: character issues. What that’s supposed to mean I cannot begin to say because my energy for digging around for what should be on every headline page across the land appears to be waning.)
A couple weeks after the alleged incident in the hotel room, the treasury secretary (of the U.S.) was on the radio throwing his – and the country’s – support behind a woman, who is also from France, to become the new head honcho at the IMF. This move, according to radio, in effect blocked someone from a Latin American country from taking over the organization. I’m not sure why that’s important, but something clicked in my mind when I heard this particular detail, and I did a very tiny bit of digging around on the internets and discovered that where I had heard this woman’s name before was on the goddamn Charlie Rose show, where he had salivated over her “for the hour.”
I still don’t know who these characters are, or where they get their power, or what their power is. I’ve spent less than a minute on the IMF site because there is only so much PR writing I can read (or write) on any given day before my eyes and my soul start to ache. As is almost always the case when the money people put their plans into action, I think two things. First, I think it’s strange that there aren’t more headlines about it. And second, I think it would make an interesting novel.
I’m comfortable leaving my questions right there, but I am starting to wonder about all this rehearsed foolishness about the debt ceiling, and the deficit, and the country’s soon-to-tank credit rating, and the people at Moody’s (whoever they are) and Ben Bernanke, who is so spazzed out he can barely focus on his audience during hearings. There was a report on The PBS Newshour last week on the theatrics concerning the debt ceiling, not the IMF (not explicitly anyhow). Among other things: Wall Street is alarmed, as is China.
Well, in that case, I thought, it can’t be all bad.
And then, fairly quietly and over the weekend, Barack Obama threw Elizabeth Warren right over the cliff. The dutiful journalists reported that the Harvard law professor who thinks the fine print at the bottom of credit card statements ought to be checked against the rules and regulations, is simply too controversial to survive a confirmation process. Then, since their paychecks are signed by the people who think forcing the money people to obey the law is a bit extreme, they dutifully reported that the man who will be put forward to lead the consumer-focused agency that Elizabeth Warren has been constructing for at least two years now isn’t really such a letdown for progressives because he is one of her protégés. And – get a load of this – he sometimes takes his shoes off at work and walks around his office in his socks. While all these tidbits come to us courtesy of the people who have the password to the checking accounts, I have no idea if they’re connected. Still, I feel better already. I mean, socks at work.
Pardon the oversimplification, but when news is reported questionably, if it’s reported at all, there is no protective barrier solid enough to prevent certain questions from having a seat right beside me on the couch as I watch the news. And since hospitality is in my blood, I refuse to kick them out.
