Resolves YES if during 2023 at least three high-level political figures in two distinct countries publicly blame IMF for mishandling a sovereign debt crisis that occurs this year. Resolves NO otherwise.
Definitions:
Occurence of a sovereign debt crisis will be determined according to mainstream news reports.
High-level international political figures are defined as those who are currently serving as cabinet members in their respective governments (or functional equivalents), and those who are currently members of any chamber of the respective national parliament (o.f.e.). This includes theirs and their institutional press secretaries (o.f.e.).
The blame must be explicitly directed at the IMF and cannot be vague or general criticism of international organizations.
Sources for verification include mainstream news outlets and official statements from the political figures themselves.
Context: All-in podcast, E110, “2023 Bestie Predictions!”
David Friedberg: “[Biggest political loser of 2023.] Here's what I think's going to happen this year. My big prediction is based on, I think the world has too much debt. I think that the economic slowdown coupled with rising interest rates globally and a dearth of kind of asset capital inflows means that there's going to be a lot of issues with a number of debt markets around the world, particularly emerging sovereign debt. (…) And I think that no matter what the IMF does, they're going to look bad. (…) I think as a result, the IMF will get a lot of heat and you'll end up seeing a lot of pressure and political, you know, (…) [royal “we”] will end up blaming the IMF for a bunch of problems that will arise.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ66 | |
| 2 | Ṁ57 | |
| 3 | Ṁ30 | |
| 4 | Ṁ5 |
@yaboi69 No Yes holders have presented any evidence of a YES resolution. I think it is safe to resolve NO now.
TL;DR: I’m on the fence. Going by the spirit of the podcast quote, the market should clearly resolve as “NO”. Going by the letter of the rules, there is a lot of room for doubt. Unless anyone protests within a day or two, I’m going to resolve “NO” and managram the “YES” holders what they could have won otherwise.
Trying to apply the market criteria, I cursorily reviewed the top relevant news stories from select countries (notably Mali, El Salvador, Ghana, Sri Lanka, Argentina, and Pakistan). Some high-level figures expressed displeasure with the IMF, and there were some defaults. (Links to two strongest stories: Pakistan and Argentina.) I did not see both happening in the same context.
However, the review was not deep and I’m missing all the local language news sources. The market rules were very liberal (frankly, ill-defined), all it takes for a “YES” resolution is a couple of parliament “backbenchers” from two countries to utter anything critical of the IMF. There are thousands of qualifying people worldwide who could have done so in any random interview.