The Gleaner editorial of June 20 reminded us that, although in reality IMF is the abbreviation for the International Monetary Fund, it was also used to mean 'Is Manley Fault'. It was an expression of displeasure with the Michael Manley-led regime and the sorry state of the economy that necessitated Jamaica entering into a borrowing relationship with the IMF (in 1977). Bad memories of the severe austerity measures which led to job cuts, currency devaluations and restrictions imposed by the IMF linger to this very day.

Whenever our eco-nomy deteriorates, we blame someone in autho-rity. Sometimes we blame the prime minister but at other times we blame the finance minister - this seems to depend on who 'fronts' the financial policies and on the prevailing circum-stances. We blamed Prime Minister Manley during the 1970s but not his ministers of finance. Strangely, we did not blame Prime Minister Seaga for the economic tough times even though he was both prime minister and minister of finance. Many blame Dr Omar Davies for our past and present economic distress but not his bosses (P.J. Patterson followed by Portia Simpson Miller).

National debt

Now that our total national debt is $1.2 trillion and we are poised to borrow from the IMF for financial cushioning to assist in ameliorating our balance of payment problems, some are not only blaming the global economic crisis but also Finance Minister Audley Shaw. They're not blaming Prime Minister Bruce Golding (even though he often 'fronts' his administration's fiscal policies).

Fear of IMF restrictions and tests make many of us cringe. However, it is said that the IMF (now 65 years old and 186 member countries strong) has mellowed (become more reasonable and user-friendly). Recently, the United States Congress committed an additional $100 billion credit line to the fund but I understand that much of that is already earmarked for some European countries in dire need of help. In spite of this, the fund seems to have enough resources to buffer our economic shortfall so we can only hope that, when we do get into bed with the IMF once again, we will suffer less than we did before. But, make no mistake about it - there will have to be some sacrifice from all of us.

I'm no economist but I'm perplexed by several questions: Did 'politics' prevent various administrations from taking bold steps to reduce significantly our dependency on imports? Why isn't tourism treated like an export industry? Are local entrepreneurs afforded the same (start-up) incentives as their overseas counterparts? Is there monitoring/advice/regulation of those that utilise large sums of foreign exchange?

Self-destructive

Pure capitalism is selfish and ultimately self-destructive. Businesses cannot be depended on to self-regulate. Importers will import all they can as long as it's profitable - even if our foreign exchange reserves dry up. The flight of foreign exchange will continue unless it's regulated. Whenever possible, people will import for themselves as long as merchants continue to price their (imported) goods prohibitively. Those who can afford it will purchase foreign exchange to educate their children abroad unless our tertiary institutions become competitive.

Each of us must demand more from our politicians. Government must be far more creative and get involved in private enterprise. It must be regulatory, facilitatory and proactive. We must consume less, produce more and export if we are to survive. So, I wonder - whose fault is it now? Perhaps many of us should be saying IMF, meaning Is My Fault.

Garth A. Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice.Feedback may be sent to garthrattray@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.