Yep, sort of, but remember where we came from: You had expressed the hope, or expectation, that someone more "expert" would become fimi. I asked what you consider to be an "expert". The qualities of a, let's say, "non-academic" economist ... I am not sure how you determine them; I proposed that a good minister needs not be an expert in the field, but a good manager and communicator. So why did you look forward to an "expert", and how do you detect expertdom? You proposed that, because of your Argentine experienced, I would "have to trust" you that you just know an expert when you see one.
I responded what I really don't have to trust you on that - which you then agreed with.
Confused?
Good!
Now I get it!
I'm saying this team don't look good for me and I think I could tell if they chose better.
For me the mifi -as you called the office- has to be someone coming from the real economy, not from university halls or from politics.
As an example, on the risk of being monothematic, or worse, to be regarded a one-trick pony, Argentine 1989 hyperinflation was not only caused by the expansion of the monetary offer like most high inflations or every hyperinflation, but also because of monetary demand plummeted because of the people's expectations: the president wanted to keep the next presidency for their political party and seeing they couldn't do well with the economy, they decided to move up the date of elections so we went to elect new president in March for his inauguration to be in December. Of course, the "populist" candidate from the opposition won: the feared political boss who promised everything to the masses (like more jobs, better salaries, houses, education and health services) -I feared him too!- and told the mid-classes that he was going to be serious, which was taken as a lame attempt to gain votes from anywhere. As a result of the economic turmoil and the months to come until the elected "monster" took office, expectations changed, inflation escalated, the government didn't know what to do but to print fresh money to pay the bills, and everything became a nightmare. By the last days of June the president announced he would resign on July 9th -Independence Day- and the elected president would take office earlier. Inflation rocketed. Only the first week of July the prices rose some 80%.
And the day came, and the "monster" recited the constitutional oath, and he appointed his minister of economy: the CEO of an exporting corporation regarded as a symbol of the most conservative Argentine oligarchy. Bad expectations deflated at once, monetary demand suddenly reappeared, the dollar stopped rocketing and inflation stopped cold. It was like now a change of expectations
got the Greeks to take their euros from their mattresses and cans and go to the shops and spend in staples and a few unnecessary items.
I'm not saying it is that simple. The immediate story of Argentina following that says it isn't -we had two short hyperinflation fits during next December and January and during March 1990 (my personal story belongs in fact to the latter period -it kept me wondering "what was I doing eating rice with tuna in the middle of the Winter?"-).
Believe me that, as a general rule, I am a person who doesn't pay attention to looks as I consider them to be mostly irrelevant. But when I see the new Greek mifi and how he looks "como pollo mojado" (like a chicken under the rain) when compared with his foreign colleagues, I tell to myself, this is not what you need to inspire trust in this conjuncture. What did they say? Something like Ceasar's wife besides being "it" she also must seem to be "it".
is this correct English? If so, it took me 20 years to learn it.
