In sheer logic and forcefulness of argumentation, the Government spokespersons have been winning the debate on the return to a borrowing relationship with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The prime minister was right - the objections to the return to the IMF have been simplistic - to be kind.

Now I would agree that at the emotional, gut and subliminal level, the Government is not winning at all, as emotions (including fear) generally trump reason. People know that a return to the IMF will mean pain, sacrifice and, most dreaded of all, economic discipline.

The prime minister in his town hall meeting in Ocho Rios, where he gave a compelling discourse on the need to return to the IMF, made a highly noteworthy point. He said that one crucial difference between Jamaica's being in a borrowing relationship with the IMF and crafting its own programme in that relationship, vis-à-vis Jamaica's having that same programme without an agreement with the IMF is that if targets are missed when we run things we can, in effect, take a "a nuh-nutten approach". With the IMF we don't have that latitude.

This is what many Jamaicans fear: That it won't be business as usual, that we won't be allowed as a country to live beyond our means without consequences; that we can't continue to run up fiscal deficits, balance of payments imbalances and huge debts without being called to account. We fear that economics might finally have to triumph over politics. When our politicians are running the show, without any accountability to the IMF, they can "run with" anything and give us the "blighs" we want; and we might actually be able to achieve the impossible feat of eating our cake and still having it.

unfair

Now, let me anticipate my friends on the left who would be quick to point out, correctly, that it is not the poor and marginalised classes in this country who have been living beyond their means. They are not the ones running up our trade and balance of payments deficits; they don't account for the bulk of the debt contracted.

What is unfair, progressives would say, is that it is the elite who have mismanaged the economy, put our economy in a hole; it is the international, principally American, capitalist elite who are responsible for the global economic crisis and yet it is the poor and oppressed who have to bear the brunt of the sacrifice. But it makes no sense to cry in our soup and bemoan the fact that the world is not fair or level. We can't stop the world and get off and while we can certainly change it, we can't change it this year to the point of having a viable alternative to the IMF.

Audley Shaw set out the Government's case impressively last Tuesday in his address to Parliament announcing the Government's return to the IMF. It was a highly reasoned, non-polemical address. He should stick to this style. For all those who are mumbling about an alternative to the IMF, or who are wailing about the dreaded conditionalities, Shaw and Prime Minister Golding have asked forcefully: How do you suggest that Government closes the huge financing gap in the budget this year?

If US$1 billion has dropped from our earnings pie in one fell swoop, how do we recoup that? I mean this year. Don't start talking foolishness about increasing production, cutting our energy bill, buying Jamaican, gaining agricultural self-sufficiency, cutting waste, as though that will give us the $1 billion in savings this year. (Those are all good things, mark you.)

I hear even trained economists talking nonsense that any O'Level economics student should be flunked for writing on any paper. (But then that's not just a local problem with the dismal science. Check out the cover story in the latest Economist "Modern Economic Theory: Where it Went wrong and how the crisis is changing it.)

The finance minister mentioned a critical point in his presentation last Tuesday: Not only do we need the financing that the IMF itself will provide, but if we don't get it we are not likely to get other critically needed funds from other multilaterals like the World Bank and the IDB. We are talking about forfeiting up to an additional US$500 million in funding without an IMF endorsement. The IMF acts as a lever to other multilateral and even private capital funding. This is nothing new. That is how the international capitalist system works.

seal of approval

The rating agencies, which have played an increasingly important role in modern capitalist economies (though their image has now been badly damaged) will also be looking favourably on Jamaica with an IMF seal of approval. Whether it is ideal to go to the IMF is not the point at all. The issues are being framed inappropriately.

It is unfortunate that we have to go to the IMF and to give up some degree of control - if we take that crucial distinction Golding gave in Ocho Rios. It is unfortunate that we have to take the painful medicine, especially for a global crisis and subsequent fall-out in bauxite, remittances and tourism that we are not responsible for. But, this is the real world and it is the only one we have to deal.

I hear some economists, financial analysts and politicians talking naively about "possible worlds" scenarios (translated fantasies) when in the real world of 2009 there are certain realities which we can't escape. Let's all agree:IMF medicine - indeed, medicine generally - is not palatable to the taste buds. It's not ice cream, gourmet food or well-cooked Jamaican curry goat. Living standards will be compressed. Spending power will be reduced. Some unemployment will take place. The poor will suffer most. Things will contract. Pain will be felt.

But the truth is there is no painless path. I would like to ask anyone who says the Government is wrong to go back to the IMF after P J Patterson waved them goodbye: With the first quarter earnings from mining activity down by a whopping 97 per cent over the corresponding period last year, how would we sustain THAT magnitude of loss in income? With export earnings in other sectors declining because of the global recession, how will be deal with our balance of payments deficits?

If Jamaica does not get an infusion of foreign exchange this year and our exchange rate depreciates further, interest rates go up, inflation rise, how will this help the poor and marginalised? I hear talk about "dealing with our long-term structural problems", dealing with "agricultural self-sufficiency" etc.

We have a tendency in our local debates to argue necessary long-term solutions when we are faced with immediate short-term problems. (Same with crime) And, yes, people will shoot back that "this is our problem, we think only in the short term we don't think future that is why we are always in a bind".

But the fact is that if the patient is bleeding profusely now and will die in a few minutes, it makes no sense talking about the need for long-term solutions. You have to deal with the immediate problem.

I am all for having a plan to address our long-term structural problems in the economy. I have been arguing for that for a long time. But, you can't make the good the enemy of the best. All the talk about the need for long-term solutions, structural change, etc, misses the point of the urgent things needed today.

One issue which Ralston Hyman, Ronnie Thawaites and now The Gleaner in an editorial on Tuesday have endorsed is the matter of restructuring the debt, most of which is owed to local people. That is a serious issue we can discuss. I don't accept the view that the mere mention of that is dangerous and that we should shut our mouths about it. I do reject as suicidal the view of some that we should repudiate the debt. But there is nothing wrong in trying to have a dialogue with those we owe to see whether they would agree to some restructuring.

Now Keith Collister in an article in the Observer's Wednesday Business did raise some good arguments against going that route. But remember we need some funds right now and so even if we were to start negotiations with those who have lent the Government money, we can't linger in addressing our urgent need for financing now. But this is discussion on debt restructuring is not foolish or dangerous though the Government should make it abundantly clear that it would be merely seeking negotiation and would never under any circumstances repudiate the debt or pressure creditors to come to an agreement.

Again this is where idealism diverges from harsh reality. The idealism and utopianism of Lloyd D'Aguilar and Cecil Gutzmore will find little space in the real world of global capitalism which has little sympathy for moral outrage.

You can argue that the Government came too late to the recognition of the seriousness of the global economic crisis or that its budget was unrealistic as Omar Davies. These points can be debated. You can say Government have an obligation to inform the people fully on the negotiations with the IMF and the Government has already committed itself to that and, indeed, has started that process.

You can argue that we have a lot of long-term structural work to do. That we should seize this time to get some fundamentals right. You can argue that the pain must be shared that the most vulnerable most be protected and that the rich must be asked to make sacrifices too and Government must cut wasteful, extravagant expenditure. Ministers must travel only when absolutely necessary; ministries must cut to the bone.

But the simplistic, head-in-the-sand arguments about why we should not go to the IMF take us only to 'Fantasyland'. Or rather keep us there.

Golding ... gave a compelling discourse on the need to return to the IMF.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboynbe1@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com