# Is the IMF really a predatory lender? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978 "2013-01-31T23:46:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/21 "2013-02-03T01:49:44Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Despite this being a major focus of your posts, you… > > (A) Have no idea what you’re talking about… > (B) Didn’t bother to take five minutes to find out… > (C) Are so far off on your numbers I laughed out loud, and… > (D) Apparently still don’t understand the difference between revenue and profit. And seem to be making both up in your head. > > Which pretty much marks this as an Epic Fail. With a ten seconds of searching I navigated my way right over to. (Finding the page took 4 seconds. It took me another 6 to locate the fiscal reports). > > [http://www.lcb.state.pa.us/PLCB/About/FactsAndFigures/FinancialReports/index.htm](http://www.lcb.state.pa.us/PLCB/About/FactsAndFigures/FinancialReports/index.htm) > > And, what do we learn from perfusing these: > > The “excess” profit deposited into state coffers in about $100 million a year, although last year was only 80. Now, don’t mistake me - that’s a lot of money. But the lion’s share of the money the state gets comes not from the corporate profits, but from the sales and liquor taxes. Nothing else the SLCB does has any impact on _that the state of PA would not get otherwise_. (There’s some complexity because the SCLB may get some freebies from the state and has acess to state services which may or may not be correctly costed; it doesn’t like like it would be a +/- 10% swing on that “bonus” paid to the state. > > Hence there’s some issues involved with this “public corporation”. First, it may be hindering overall alchohol sales if it isn’t doing is work effectively. It may not be as licensing as widely as it should. It may have inefficient operations which could increase the market or decrease costs (which, if it were private, could be taxed). It currently has no competition. It’s also involved with a rather broad segment fo the market, both running its own stores and distribution and engaging in enforcement; that can work and sometimes does, but even a first-year business school student would raise its eyebrow and bring up the phrase, “Core Competencies.” > > If the state thinks they can sell it for a $100 bill, that could be a very good deal. You get the funds for the next decade, a pretty good chance of increasing your revenues more than you lost, and get to move significant pension obligations off your books. Reasonable people can disagree. But they need to disagree because they’ve read the basic financial implications, not because they like imaginary numbers. > > Although personally, I do like imaginary numbers. First of all, please don’t get personal, secondly, thank you bringing the cite. The PLCB has an income of 2 billion dollars of which PLBC contributes 4 .4 million to local muncipalities, 21 million to State Police for Liquor Enforcement, 2 million to Health Drug and Alcohol Programs, 420 million in liquor taxes, 4 million dollars to alcohol education, and 80 million dollars in profits. Who is benefits to sell a state-owned business for $1 billion when it’s income is $2 billion and you have, aside from the 420 million in tax revenue and 80 million in profits, an additional $30 million going back into the State in the for alcohol prevention programs. Who would fill that gap? It makes no sense and your reasoning amounts to shoulda, couldas, and wouldas. If PLCB sells their liquor at the cheapest levels that the law allows, how precisely will allowing more competition be a benefit? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/22 "2013-02-03T03:41:12Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > The PLCB has an income of 2 billion dollars Don’t take this personally, but do you know how to read an income statement? The PCLB reports yearly net incomes in the 125mil range. The number on the “summary” document under the INCOME header from sales is GROSS income–that is, before you subtract out little things like “buying stock”, “paying employees”, and “renting storefronts”. Properly speaking, that should be displayed as “REVENUE”, but that’s a whole kettle of worms in fiscal reporting that’s not really relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/23 "2013-02-03T03:52:06Z")
Having just done some VERY naive NPV math, $1bil is actually pretty close to spot-on for what someone in it for the long haul (10+ years) would want to pay for the retail operations of the PCLB. **Honesty** , I’m sorry, but your case is pretty much fallen flat. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/24 "2013-02-03T04:31:02Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I said “most”, son. There’s exceptions to every damn thing under the sky. You funny but that’s not an argument really. Just funny. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > You have totally made such amazing arguments and provided so much data and evidence that I am compelled to agree with you totally. I’m especially amazed at your ability to sum up complex national finances and economic movements in simplistic emotional terms that a six-year old could understand. re: IMF “bailout” of Brazil > [@](#): > > The $30 billion loan package for Brazil announced by the IMF will basically aid and shield some major US banks with large exposure in Brazil, several US media reports said on 9 August. [http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twe286b.htm](http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twe286b.htm) Exactly as I said > [@newcomer](#): > > All the while their goals were not saving the country but saving foreign investments (feels weird to pint that out). The best part is that it is the US taxpayer that is funding IMF via “quota contributions” and that money saved US banks that had risky exposures in Brazil. They spoon fed them until they blew. Deja vu 2008 crisis when banks overfed consumers and then taxpayer bailed US banks, again. Yes, it is. Do you disagree that IMF is funded by taxpayer money? Please do! Tell this “son” how IMF operates 😃 Also, that “bailout” went so fine & dandy: > [@](#): > > Visiting Brazil’s former colonial power alongside hand-picked successor Dilma Rousseff, “superstar” ex-president Lula took a stab at the IMF saying “whenever the IMF tried to take care of countries’ debts, it created more problems than solutions.” > **[Brazil's Lula Tells Portugal To Reject IMF Bailout As Lisbon Faces Downgrade](https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/03/29/brazils-lula-tells-portugal-to-reject-imf-bailout-as-lisbon-faces-downgrade/)** > > Lula Da Silva took a stab at the IMF, telling Portugal to reject an external bailout while claiming IMF would just create more problems and hamper growth; meanwhile, S&P downgraded Portugal's debt to one level above "junk" status. Shall we try this one again? :o ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/25 "2013-02-03T07:13:52Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > It takes a lot of wistful thinking to try to claim China’s economic growth as somehow related to the Washington Consensus. Here is a list of the ten points of the Washington Consensus as defined by John Williamson (from the Wiki page). > [@](#): > > 1.Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP; > 2.. Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment; > 3.. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates; > 4..Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms; > 5. Competitive exchange rates; > 6.. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs; > 7.. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment; > 8.. Privatization of state enterprises; > 9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions; > 10. Legal security for property rights. I don’t think any of these points would be strongly rejected by the Chinese government. The last five in particular are central to China’s growth model in the last 30 years. Obviously they haven’t fully implemented most of these points but that has been the general direction of their policy in the last 30 years. For example they haven’t privatized everything and perhaps never will but they have privatized a huge chunk of the economy compared to the 70’s. > [@](#): > > And of course those who lived in East Asia at the time might have a very different view of your version of the Asian crisis. In many places, that whole episode is referred to as the “IMF crisis” and people see the recovery as being in spite of the problems that the IMF created. ``` I know that the IMF was heavily criticized in the region ; my point was that in fact most of those countries recovered fairly fast from a crippling crisis. For example in 98-2000 South Korea's GDP grew faster than Malaysia which ignored the IMF. Popular perception in the region about the IMF in the region doesn't match the reality. In fact I think part of the role of the IMF is to serve as a scapegoat so these countries can blame it for the inevitably painful post-crisis recovery. This doesn't do anything for its global reputation but it doesn't mean the IMF itself is responsible for the pain. ``` In any case I don’t want to defend every single policy prescription of the IMF in every country. In some cases they were probably too aggressive in cutting social spending. In the 90’s they were perhaps too enthusiastic about capital account liberalization. Like you said, they have retreated from those positions somewhat. ``` However the broad thrust of their policy recommendations along with those of the World Bank have been right. Every single one of those 10 prescriptions by Williamson is valid and they have helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the last 30 years. What's more Williamson's points are perfectly compatible with government spending on health and education and financial and environmental regulation as stressed by Williamson himself. ``` ---
**Author:** ![DaveBfd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DaveBfd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaveBfd)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/26 "2013-02-03T07:22:11Z")
What are your thoughts on the film “life and debt” (free on youtube I believe) which showcases the struggles Jamaica has faced with the IMF? They speak with the former leader and he kind of narrates the video. As of right now this video is all I base my opinion on really, outside of a few other readings and articles. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/27 "2013-02-03T17:29:36Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > First of all, please don’t get personal, secondly, thank you bringing the cite. :smack: You _do_ understand that the total amount of money wouldn’t actually change, don’t you? Because you certainly don’t seem to understand that. I mean, you comprehend that people have to pay taxes whether or not the SCLB controls distro or not, and that (amazingly) they still pay them in other states? You are indulging in “fantasty math”, ever a popular favorite. That is, if you want to make an intelligent argument, you cannot just point to some arbitrarily chosen big pile ‘o cash. You have to point out advantages and disadvantages to both sides. If you can’t understand the other sides’ argument, you’re not winning. You’re simply showing you can’t make a coherent argument. At this point, I’m tempted to do so because I hate to see people argue a point _wrong_. And also because I don’t really care either way - I’m offended not at the thought of keeping the SCLB public, but at the fiscal nonsense you are promulgating. > [@newcomer](#): > > You funny but that’s not an argument really. Just funny. It wasn’t an argument because it didn not need to be. Outside of nitpicking something I didn’t actually say, and which is not an exception to what I said in the first place, you failed to make any point. Actually, come to think of it, nitpicking based on your incorrect reading of what I simply and plainly stated isn’t much of a point, either. > [@](#): > > re: IMF “bailout” of Brazil In other words, you still don’t have an argument and are just grabbing what other opeople have said (a decade ago at this point). (1) Some guys’s speculation as to the motives of a complicated financial move do not constitute an argument. (2) If you happed to read anything about Jamaica’s economic history since that time, you might note that Jamaica has done well. Their currency has doubled in value, and barring the nasty shock starting in 2008 (which hit everyone), they hadreasonable growth - partiocularly considering their real GDP growth from 1990 to 2000 was likely _negative_. They’re doing better than we are right now. (3) I’m sure that Lula has no motive whatsoever to point fingers at the IMF. None whatsoever. Once again, do you have something to offer besides emotional appeals? because even if the emotional appeals were completely accurate, they don’t actually _say_ anything. Saying that this guy or that guy doesn’t like the IMF doesn’t really say much. In short, c’mopn people. I’ve heard way more intlligent attacks on the IMF. Hell, they’re not hard to find. Go look up Brad DeLong if you want one. I don’t think much of his economics, but at least he’s thinking about the actual fiscal evidence and not somebody’s emotional outburst or political position. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/28 "2013-02-03T18:11:02Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > :smack: > > You _do_ understand that the total amount of money wouldn’t actually change, don’t you? Because you certainly don’t seem to understand that. I mean, you comprehend that people have to pay taxes whether or not the SCLB controls distro or not, and that (amazingly) they still pay them in other states? You are indulging in “fantasty math”, ever a popular favorite. That is, if you want to make an intelligent argument, you cannot just point to some arbitrarily chosen big pile ‘o cash. You have to point out advantages and disadvantages to both sides. If you can’t understand the other sides’ argument, you’re not winning. You’re simply showing you can’t make a coherent argument. > > At this point, I’m tempted to do so because I hate to see people argue a point _wrong_. And also because I don’t really care either way - I’m offended not at the thought of keeping the SCLB public, but at the fiscal nonsense you are promulgating. > > It wasn’t an argument because it didn not need to be. Outside of nitpicking something I didn’t actually say, and which is not an exception to what I said in the first place, you failed to make any point. Actually, come to think of it, nitpicking based on your incorrect reading of what I simply and plainly stated isn’t much of a point, either. > > In other words, you still don’t have an argument and are just grabbing what other opeople have said (a decade ago at this point). > > (1) Some guys’s speculation as to the motives of a complicated financial move do not constitute an argument. > (2) If you happed to read anything about Jamaica’s economic history since that time, you might note that Jamaica has done well. Their currency has doubled in value, and barring the nasty shock starting in 2008 (which hit everyone), they hadreasonable growth - partiocularly considering their real GDP growth from 1990 to 2000 was likely _negative_. They’re doing better than we are right now. > (3) I’m sure that Lula has no motive whatsoever to point fingers at the IMF. None whatsoever. > > Once again, do you have something to offer besides emotional appeals? because even if the emotional appeals were completely accurate, they don’t actually _say_ anything. Saying that this guy or that guy doesn’t like the IMF doesn’t really say much. In short, c’mopn people. I’ve heard way more intlligent attacks on the IMF. Hell, they’re not hard to find. Go look up Brad DeLong if you want one. I don’t think much of his economics, but at least he’s thinking about the actual fiscal evidence and not somebody’s emotional outburst or political position. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/29 "2013-02-03T18:24:31Z")
**smiling bandit** , you are the one arguing emotionally by using hostility to intimidate. You are responsible for your own miscommunications because you deliberately engage the anger centers in people’s brains, which prevents them from reading what you said logically. If people aren’t understanding you, then it’s up to you to clarify. If someone is making a fallacious argument, it is up to you to point out the fallacies to return to neutral ground, and then make a counterargument. Anyone can say that an exception is an exception. Explain why it is an exception. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/30 "2013-02-03T19:40:27Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > **smiling bandit** , you are the one arguing emotionally by using hostility to intimidate. You are responsible for your own miscommunications because you deliberately engage the anger centers in people’s brains, which prevents them from reading what you said logically. The anti-IMF side\* has failed to provide any kind of susbstantive debate and faield to do so from the very beginning. Hell, it began explicitly with a conspiracy theory. I call a spade a spade. I’m not even pro-IMF. I don’t actually care about it one way or the other; but I also hold no regard for bad economics. > [@](#): > > If people aren’t understanding you, then it’s up to you to clarify. If someone is making a fallacious argument, it is up to you to point out the fallacies to return to neutral ground, and then make a counterargument. So far, there is no coherent argument here against the IMF. That is what irritates the piss out of me. “Some guy said it is bad” does _not_ constitute an argument. I don’t see anything to clarify, because I don’t see any actual questioning of content, not do I see any signfiicant misunderstanding. I see misaimed nitpickery and emotive arguments substituting for reasoned debate. I absolutely will _not_ humor it. I don’t really care if you think me a jerk; I’m a jerk _with high standards_. > [@](#): > > Anyone can say that an exception is an exception. Explain why it is an exception. It isn’t an exception to what I said: note that I quite clearly qualified my statement with the word “most.” I do not have to explain anything, because they were certainly included within the potential bounds of the statement, which is factually accurate insofar as it goes. This would further be an example of the kind of nitpickery I’m finding so obnoxious: your question focuses on trivial aspects, pretends I said something I didn’t, and adds nothing. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/31 "2013-02-03T22:53:33Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > The anti-IMF side\* has failed to provide any kind of susbstantive debate and faield to do so from the very beginning. Hell, it began explicitly with a conspiracy theory. > > I call a spade a spade. I’m not even pro-IMF. I don’t actually care about it one way or the other; but I also hold no regard for bad economics. > > So far, there is no coherent argument here against the IMF. That is what irritates the piss out of me. “Some guy said it is bad” does _not_ constitute an argument. > > I don’t see anything to clarify, because I don’t see any actual questioning of content, not do I see any signfiicant misunderstanding. I see misaimed nitpickery and emotive arguments substituting for reasoned debate. I absolutely will _not_ humor it. > > I don’t really care if you think me a jerk; I’m a jerk _with high standards_. > > It isn’t an exception to what I said: note that I quite clearly qualified my statement with the word “most.” I do not have to explain anything, because they were certainly included within the potential bounds of the statement, which is factually accurate insofar as it goes. > > This would further be an example of the kind of nitpickery I’m finding so obnoxious: your question focuses on trivial aspects, pretends I said something I didn’t, and adds nothing. Let’s try again. It is actually very simple. IMF, World Bank and BIS form a global financial network where each entity has its special role, IMF being “a lender of last resort” when it comes to a country that is entangled in a strong relationship with international financial flow of capital which means they owe money to banks in major Western countries, most notably US due to overwhelming contribution US makes in IMF both in terms of capital raised for rescue and vote value when it comes to who and when to rescue. However, it’s not US alone - Germany, UK, France, Austria, Italy, Swiss too. IMF puts together rescue fund via its member states and those member states get their money from their own budget which means IMF operates with taxpayer money. IMF interest and purpose is to salvage short-term (under 5 year) debt owed to member banks and it works pretty much as debt collector with only one difference - the conditions on getting a rescue funds go progressively from bad to worse. I already referenced examples of Asian Crisis, Brazil and someone mentioned Jamaica - all very examples of what I claim (even though everyone who ever looked at the mechanics of IMF rescue plan knows): IMF enters specific country situation to use taxpayer money to rescue debt owed by a said country to IMF member countries. Since they don’t care about the country well-being at all, the conditions attached to the rescue loans are extremely aggressive to the point of intentional breakdown of country’s way of life and general well-being. Case in point - and another of those “exceptions” 😉 - Hungary: > [@BBC Article](#): > > Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has rejected as unacceptable the conditions attached by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to a new 15bn-euro (£12bn; $19bn) loan. > > On his Facebook page, he said the list of the loan terms “contains everything that is not in Hungary’s interests”. > > Mr Orban said this included pension cuts and the withdrawal of a tax on banks. > **[Hungary PM Viktor Orban rejects IMF loan terms](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19514325)** > > Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban rejects as unacceptable the conditions attached by the IMF to a new 15bn-euro (£12bn; $19bn) loan. If interested in a real study of IMF may I suggest ODI’s report from 1980’s. Very interesting albeit cautious read - [http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6933.pdf](http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6933.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2013, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/32 "2013-02-04T00:21:40Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > **smiling bandit** , you are the one arguing emotionally by using hostility to intimidate… The White Knight speaks. You lose, because if he speaks, you are automatically wrong. [sub]Why don’t you give the White Knight bit a rest, **BigT**? You inevitably make a better emotional case for the other side every time you try your ‘emotion only’ appeals.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/33 "2013-07-05T16:23:46Z")
Oh, that’s so sweet by IMF to say: > [@](#): > > The International Monetary Fund has admitted to major missteps over the past three years in its handling of the bailout of Greece, the first spark in a debt crisis that spread across Europe. [http://www.nasdaq.com/article/imf-concedes-it-made-mistakes-on-greece-20130605-01279](http://www.nasdaq.com/article/imf-concedes-it-made-mistakes-on-greece-20130605-01279) But, who cares now? Back to business-as-usual … :o ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2013, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/34 "2013-07-08T02:47:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Is the IMF really a predatory lender? You mean like John Perkins says ? ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2013, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978/35 "2013-07-08T20:29:09Z")
Regarding state liquor setups … this should really be in a new thread. I’ve experienced two: Michigan and North Carolina. In MI, the state was is sole “distributor.” That’s a bit of a paper sham, because the state never takes possession, it just collects a markup on all sales. Licensed retailers can carry any products they want, so you can buy whatever’s popular enough to get shelf space in your favorite store. There are specialty liquor shops where you can find unusual international or local treasures. In NC, you have to buy liquor from the ABC stores. I have no argument with the people working there, who are polite and helpful. The shelves are stocked with whatever the state thinks will sell. You can get stuff special order, but you have to know what to order: no browsing! There are no boutique shops with unusual finds. There are plenty of brands or bottles you’ve heard of but won’t find stocked. Of course, the only reason that states control liquor sales is because they can. They didn’t, but then Prohibition made liquor sales illegal. As part of the deal to repeal the amendment, the states got the liquor business handed to them on a platter, and they milk it for revenues. Well, OK, that’s history, and I don’t terribly mind liquor prices, or the fact that I get the benefit as a light drinker that others make such a big contribution to the state. But I vastly prefer open market in Michigan to the single point-of-sale in NC. It’s more convenient, more variety, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find that a bigger chunk of the revenues goes to the state coffers (rather than to pay rent on ABC stores, etc.) I suggest to PA residents that they endorse the privatization of liquor sales, if done properly. I’m confident that it could be done in a revenue-neutral manner. However, simply selling the distribution to a private company, without opening up the market, would be a disaster. Then they’d have all the disadvantages of a monopoly with few of the advantages. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-imf-really-a-predatory-lender/648978.md?page=1)