Ótimo perfil do Blanchard no WP. Meus destaques:
“Olivier won the economic argument on balancing austerity and growth,” Lipton says. “The only arguments left involve politics and diplomacy.”
Complicado dizer que ganhou a discussão… mas dentro do Fundo, que recomenda as políticas pode ser o bastante.
While the bailout allowed Greece to avoid a default, the Greek people would wind up paying a steep price. Income and economic output would shrink more than 20 percent, while unemployment would rise to 27 percent as even more debt was piled on debt. For European voters and their politicians, this seemed like a fitting outcome for a profligate country with an uncompetitive economy and a government so corrupt and incompetent that it could not even collect the taxes it was owed. What was never mentioned, at least in public, was that in bailing out the Greeks, European governments were really bailing out their own banks.
De fato, esse ponto passa sempre despercebido. A crise só passou para os governos porque estes bail-out os bancos. Ache ou não correto, não foram os gastos descontrolados previamente.
For an academic who had spent a career searching for economic truth, having to reconcile the supposedly scientific insights of economics with political and bureaucratic realities proved even more challenging than Blanchard had anticipated. What he found most surprising, he said during a relaxing moment on Re, was how quickly a consensus can develop around some question on the basis of what decision-makers read in the press or hear over dinner. People on the outside, he said, have no idea how much time and energy is spent responding to or anticipating the reaction of the media and critics.
Isso sim deve ser desesperador na mudança de ambiente! Deve ter aprendido muito de técnica de convencimento nesses anos.