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?
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.
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.
You funny but that’s not an argument really. Just funny.
re: IMF “bailout” of Brazil
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twe286b.htm
Exactly as I said
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:
Shall we try this one again? :o
Here is a list of the ten points of the Washington Consensus as defined by John Williamson (from the Wiki page).
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.
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.
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.
: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.
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.
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:
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
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]
Oh, that’s so sweet by IMF to say:
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/imf-concedes-it-made-mistakes-on-greece-20130605-01279
But, who cares now?
Back to business-as-usual … :o
You mean like John Perkins says ?
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.