«The prestigious position might have been awarded this summer to Ricardo Reis of the London School of Economics. But his occasionally blunt media comments reportedly cost him the job. According to the Financial Times, the offending remarks included some orthodox criticisms of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which he said would raise prices and reduce efficiency. In response, the IMF “categorically” denied that “any candidate was disqualified because of their academic views on the detrimental impact of tariffs…It is not credible to suggest we would object to views that our own research has confirmed and publicised.”
Tariffs are not, however, the only targets Mr Reis has hit. In his column for Expresso, a Portuguese newspaper, he once described Mr Trump as a “protofascist”, albeit institutionally constrained. He later suggested that the president likes tariffs partly because of the exemptions he can grant. “Anyone who wants to pay less has to convince Trump with flattery, business deals with his family, gifts…For someone who sees the presidency as a way to enrich himself personally, or even simply to be flattered, tariffs are an excellent tool.” Last year a column entitled “Gringos on the pampas” marvelled at the Trump administration’s willingness to lend to Argentina. The Peronist left, which could reclaim power at the next election, “proudly never pay what they owe”, he wrote.
As an academic, he is entitled to such views. But as an IMF appointee, they might have caused a fuss. America, after all, is the fund’s biggest shareholder; Argentina its biggest borrower.
Mr Reis will not, then, go to Washington, where he would have formed a dynamic Bretton Woods duo with Michael Kremer, a Nobel-prizewinner nominated this week to be chief economist of the World Bank. His influence will instead remain indirect and intellectual. His research sheds light on several of the fund’s preoccupations, such as fiscal limits, the monetary mystique of central banks and the network of currency swap lines between them.»