Talk:International Monetary Fund

Criticism

How can free-market advocates criticise the Fund? It isafter all the beacon of neoliberalism.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? Putting an organisation beyond all criticism, even evidence-based criticism, is a religious rather than an economic decision. bobrayner (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that free-market advocates (as the section states) are said to crticises the fund. How is free-market a religious decision?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you've answered your own rhetorical question. "Free market" is an economic rather than a religious concept. Some people who understand the economics might feel, after looking at the evidence, that some of the IMF's decisions have been bad; no complex organisation in a complex evironment can have a perfect record - some make better decisions than others. If there are other people who have more black-and-white dogmatic stances, they may give the IMF unquestioning support or unwavering opposition, but you have ruled those out. bobrayner (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the criticism of the IMF's policies are not from free market advocates, but from supply-side economists (and human rights activists). The limited information under "Criticism from Free-Market advocates" might more realistically be called "some vague defenses that the IMF uses to justify against criticism of it's free-market policies." Recommend removing section unless someone can write a summary of criticisms of the fund that actually speak from a free-market economics perspective. The linked citation from aynrand.org may be useful, as free market ideology is founded on the idea that all government intervention is bad for the economy, and therefore the concept of the IMF in general is principally flawed. Morgainari (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I thought most of the criticisms come from people of various backgrounds--Stiglitiz (asysmmetric information in economics), H-J Chang (political economy) and even non-economists.Cibwins2885 (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's true in as much as there is plenty of criticism for the IMF from various fields (as demonstrated by the Criticism section) but I think the point still stands that I don't think the section "Criticism - From Free-Market Advocates" conveys what it intends to convey.Morgainari (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Just dropping a note that the second paragraph of the Criticisms section is written in a very unencyclopedic manner, especially the part about restructuring. I don't usually edit so I'll leave it up to someone who can. Yangez (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

IMF/World Bank consensus

"Historically the IMF’s managing director has been European and the president of the World Bank has been from the United States. However, this standard is increasingly being questioned".

There is a weasel word tag for this claim, a good citation would be from the article 'The IMF' in the latest Economist, if anyone would want to put it in.

le Dan (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dan.

I couldn't find anything really suitable from The Economist (it would have been helpful if you had give the URL) but I did source with the BRIC nations statement earlier in the competition, citing The Financial Times. If you would like to put a URL here to the article you're thinking of and let me know, I'd be glad to cite it. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

see Woods, Ngaire, 2003, “The US, the World Bank and the IMF” in Foot, Rosemary, MacFarlene, S.Neil, and Mastanduno, Michael (ed.)., US Hegemony and International Organizations, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.92-114 and others on this.Cibwins2885 (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cibwins. Thanks for this. I've cited this in the article thus "Woods, Ngaire (2003). "The United States and the International Financial Institutions: Power and Influence Within the World Bank and the IMF". In Foot, Rosemary, MacFarlene, S.Neil, and Mastanduno, Michael. US Hegemony and International Organizations. U.S.A.: OUP. pp. 92-114. ISBN 9780199261437. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/9780199261437/toc.html. " FightingMac (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. some times refs go beyond links.Cibwins2885 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Organizational structure

How does the IMF operate? What are the roles of the Managing Director? How many deputies does she have? What is the hierarchy? These are questions the article should answer in a separate clear section. Ratibgreat (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

indeedCibwins2885 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

International Privatisation Fund

The IMF should be renamed thus. And privatisation is anything but a neutral policy. It is only favoured by Reaganites and Thatcherites. Keynes must be spinning in his grave. SmokeyTheCat 19:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for article improvement which are based on evidence rather than ideology? bobrayner (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote about China leaving

I don't understand why the leaving of China from IMF is quoted by the article marked number 11. This article deals with Kosovo, not China. Perma link Erendar (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The source says:

Other would-be nations have found the going tough as they sought membership in international bodies. Taiwan was booted out of the IMF in 1980 when China was admitted, and it hasn't applied to return since. Unlike Kosovo, Taiwan isn't recognized by the U.S. and most other major nations as a fully independent state, and an IMF application would be unlikely to succeed.

bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)