A Quote by Charles Dallara

We have not argued in either Brazil or Argentina that the IMF should step in to protect the banks. — © Charles Dallara
We have not argued in either Brazil or Argentina that the IMF should step in to protect the banks.
The investment banks should either choose to be regulated as banks or should arrange to conduct their affairs to not require the stop-gap support of the Federal Reserve.
The government shouldn't step in at the first stage and create land banks. Industry should buy the land as much as they can, and if they get stuck, then the government should step in.
I passionately disagreed with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's plan to bail out the banks by using a public fund called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to help banks take toxic assets off their balance sheets. I argued that it would be much better to put the money where the hole was and replenish the equity of the banks themselves.
I was never argued out of faith; it was much more passive than that - and I wasn't argued back in, either.
Fiat has assembly plants in Brazil and Argentina.
The United States has given frequent and enthusiastic support to the overthrow of democracy in favor of "investor friendly" regimes. The World Bank, IMF, and private banks have consistently lavished huge sums on terror regimes, following their displacement of democratic governments, and a number of quantitative studies have shown a systematic positive relationship between U.S. and IMF / World Bank aid to countries and their violations of human rights.
My dream was to become a big player in Europe. But most of the stars there are either from Europe or places like Brazil and Argentina. How many come from Edmonton, where you're only supposed to play hockey? None. So yeah, I had a lot of doubts. I wondered if I had gone as far as I could.
Regardless of the great rivalry between Brazil and Argentina, one only rivals who he admires.
Argentina against Brazil is the most important derby between national teams.
The IMF is a more complicated issue. I think there is a broad sentiment among both the left and the right that the IMF may be doing more harm than good. On the right, there's the view that it represents a form of corporate welfare that is counter to the IMF's own ideology of markets. But anybody who has watched government from the inside recognizes that governments need institutions, need ways to respond to crises. If the IMF weren't there, it would probably be reinvented. So the issue is fundamentally reform.
Logically, it may be argued that banks could indeed lower interest rates and make up their profits through larger borrowing volumes. But banks, in turn, could justify exorbitant rates by arguing that they cater to a riskier segment.
Every government, from the Obama administration right through to Angela Merkel, the Eurozone and the IMF, promise to save the banks, not the economy.
A national team is a reflection of its country's football, and both Brazil and Argentina have earned respect for what they've achieved.
The risk of policy contagion could be magnified if a new funding arrangement were agreed between Argentina and the IMF before a comprehensive policy framework is developed that addresses fundamental investor concerns.
We interpret our agreement with the IMF - our participation in the IMF's system of cooperation - as a borrowing agreement. The IMF sees it as an economic policy agreement. This is not in our interest.
Argentina has never been able to convince itself that it can win in Brazil. For some reason we have always struggled.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!