What is now important is whether GOB will adopt any of the recommendations the IMF proposed, which include reduced government expenditure, wage freezes and increased taxation ? predominantly, the poor people would be affected.

In a speech delivered in 1775, Patrick Henry said, ?I know of no way of judging the future, but by the past.?

If Belizeans were to look in the IMF?s past, they would find a reputation saturated with failures, where economies that it attempted to ?bail out? only found themselves in deeper debt trenches. But, by the IMF?s standards, their report card was strewn with ?A?s,? but they have caused the collapse of several economies, including that of Russia. The successful IMF self-assessed report card remained until Argentina?s economy was virtually annihilated.

After the IMF economists dictated to the Argentines how they should run their country economically, and politically to some extent, they were possibly forced (by widespread negative media attention?) to look at what went wrong.

The IMF investigation that was conducted in 2002 suggested that the IMF team that was charged with keeping a close watch on Argentina?s economy failed to do its job diligently, and that all the IMF measures that were suggested were not implemented in a timely manner. In other words, Argentina should have fallen sooner rather than later, and more swiftly.

Anne Krueger, IMF hit woman (Deputy Managing Director of IMF), told a BBC reporter (2003) that Argentina was simply ?a mistake.?

A mistake? Was it a mistake for the IMF to suggest that the Argentine currency be pegged to the US dollar, even though Argentina did not have the ability to sustain it? Was it a mistake to allow Argentina to borrow more money than it could ever repay, especially while it was increasing its imports and decreasing its exports?

Is that what mothers must say to their starving children, that ?some local and foreign economists made a mistake?? Is that what the thousands of Argentine children dying from malnutrition were thinking, that Anne Krueger, the IMF economists, and the Argentine government, made a simple mistake?

Was it a mistake when former Argentine President, Fernando De La Rua, slashed government-funded programs, raised taxes, cut salaries by 20 percent under the government?s emergency employment program, and cut civil servants? salary by up to 15 percent, in addition to cutting pension payments?

In 2000, Argentina, through their Central Bank, signed a Technical Memorandum of Understanding with the IMF. One stipulation of the TMOU was that Argentina had to cut the government budget deficit by $1.2 Billion USD in one year. Argentina was also required to peg its currency, the peso, to the US dollar, at a one-to-one ratio. The American bankers and speculators who facilitated the peg charged a 16 percent risk premium for the dollars that Argentina needed to back the peso.

Argentina was once considered a potential rival to the United States of America; at one time, it was the fifth wealthiest nation worldwide, and it was the leading Ibero-America nation. By the time De La Rua was forced to resign, Argentina had an unemployment rate of nearly 18 percent.

Although Argentines could no longer pay taxes, much less provide for their families after their spending power had dwindled down to nothing more than a distant memory, the IMF predicted a 3.7 percent growth in economic production.

The strangest thing is that the IMF, in conjunction with the World Bank and other lending institutions, dispatched an emergency loan package to Argentina in 2001 for the sum of $26 billion USD. When considering the 16 percent levy on its currency peg, plus its normal interest rates on its $128 billion USD debt, which amounted to roughly $27 billion USD, Argentina ended up giving back the ?emergency? money in the form of loan payments to its US-based lenders.

Looking at what went wrong in Argentina could turn into a highly technical discussion on economics and foreign policy, very quickly. There might not be a need to look at all the technicalities; one only needs to look at the surface to see how detrimental the IMF could be to any Third World economy.

Belizeans only have to look at their neighbors in Latin America to get a glimpse of what the future in Belize could very well look like.

What does the IMF propose for Belize? In a nutshell, it suggested that the GOB extinguish any possibility of recovering from the present economic debacle.

The IMF proposals are more serious and more complex than this, but again, there is no overwhelming need to get technical, because in broad terms, it is clear that Belizeans could not possibly benefit from its implementation.

There have been suggestions that the GOB could become more efficient in collecting taxes, and as the United Democratic Party, the Opposition, suggested in their ?plan of recovery,? efficient collection of taxes would significantly alleviate the country?s debt. They have also said that there is no need to increase the present taxes that exist; instead, basically, they have proposed a new tax, under the guise of ?broadening? the tax assessment.

The new UDP tax, which would supposedly ?stamp out? corruption, would be levied against those who are seen with ?wealth.? One has to wonder how the UDP would levy taxes against the owner of a ?pimped? ride who cannot afford to meet his monthly utility bills.

But more than that, the UDP is proposing to setup a ?special? committee made up primarily of international bankers, who would essentially dictate Belize?s economic policies. The Opposition criticized the GOB about having invited the IMF, yet they are willing to setup a committee for them.

It would be interesting to know what the young people of Belize think about the present state of the economy, especially the students who hold degrees in business administration and finance. The University of Belize should seize this moment to hold forums where its students could voice their perspective on the economic issues that presently face our country.