Ecosphere even.

I’ll give you a clue: his surname is a slant rhyme with “Sorrows”. BTW: Lagarde, or anyone else, that works for the IMF has diplomatic immunity. Also, the entire organization is indemnified from prosecution …it’s in their Charter… so they are supra-judicial financial terrorists.

Or equally possible: that it is the upper one percent that find themselves redundant …their fear is not paranoid nor delusional? Beyond the fossil fuel dependent faux-prosperity of final stage capitalist armed robbery …the longer the lacuna of the Long Depression… there is at least the possibility of a new evolutionary socialist paradigm emerging around the necessity of sustainable food sovereignty; sustainable energy sovereignty; and cooperative community building (commons). In such a paradigm: there will be no place for free-lunch rentierism …all resources will be cyclical and productive of self-maximising life capital …our new wealth paradigm invested in each other (including the ecoshere) …to which entitlement and expectation will be voluntarily re-aligned?
Or, we could all kill ourselves in the ultra-competetive race for what’s left? We either grow up, or fuck up to the detriment of all. All the money in Davos can’t save from a nuclear winter?

If that is the case then the top 10 officials responsible must never work in financial services again, as they are organised criminals.
Important to name the billionaires who gave them their orders…..

It was worse than that even. The IMF cancelled Ukraine’s debt to Russia …a flagrant rewriting of the rules of international finance …
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-09/imf-just-entered-cold-war-forgives-ukraines-debt-russia

It was more blatant than that. Michael Hudson pointed out the true extent of IMF loans in the service of US Imperialism and the neo-nazi Ukrainian regime. As follows:
”The IMF broke four of its rules by lending to Ukraine: (1) Not to lend to a country that has no visible means to pay back the loan (the “No More Argentinas” rule, adopted after the IMF’s disastrous 2001 loan to that country). (2) Not to lend to a country that repudiates its debt to official creditors (the rule originally intended to enforce payment to U.S.-based institutions). (3) Not to lend to a country at war – and indeed, destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back the loan. Finally (4), not to lend to a country unlikely to impose the IMF’s austerity “conditionalities.” Ukraine did agree to override democratic opposition and cut back pensions, but its junta proved too unstable to impose the austerity terms on which the IMF insisted.”