Talk:International Monetary Fund

"Criticisms" bias

The "Criticisms" and "Reform" sections seem horrendously biased. They make statements such as "The IMF’s role as a generalist institution specializing in macroeconomic issues needs reform," and both make reliance on a single source. I would propose that some of the material be retained, but couched in terms such as "According to Jeffrey Sachs", as stating that an institution needs reform is completely unencyclopaedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazok (talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Criticisms" section underneath "Conditionality of Loans" is blatantly biased and has no verifiability- for example, the sentence "The Fund knows very little about what public spending on programs like public health and education actually means, especially in African countries; they have no feel for the impact that their proposed national budget will have on people." has no citation, and is clearly in violation of NPOV. I suggest that the more egregious material either be deleted, or reworded and cited as its respective owner's opinion. 99.20.58.13 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms cleanup

There are two main sections labeled "criticisms"

In addition, language such as "Moreover, it was sometimes claimed that the burden of the deflationary effects was borne disproportionately by the poor." How are things getting cheaper bad? Especially for the poor?

The second criticisms section lacks many citations for things it alleges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Something missing

It has been reported today that Ukraine is getting $ 18 billion from the IMF. With the IMF obviously not printing money, it needs to be said where IMF billions are actually coming from.

Why not use this loan to Ukraine as an example to make us understand where IMF money comes from, and if all funds come from the same sources. Without knowing anything, the IMF looks like a money tree.

Is the money taxpayer funds from IMF member states?

Does it come from private banks in member countries, and in which ratios? In this case it is even important to know who carries the risks of these loans as I am not optimistic that the Ukraine is stable (or honest) enough to pay back the loans this time. If we are members in the IMF, should we not know if or when they engage in risky business and to what extent? 121.209.56.80 (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

US dollar, being printed in the USA and will flow into private pockets of corrupt Ukrainian politicians. That's the simple trick of US empirialism and how they will dictate their future policies to the Ukraine (that's actually the US trick since the Marshall plan). Anyhow, it doesn't matter because foreign loans don't make sense whatsoever. Ukraine should print their own money and subsequently put it into their own economy (investments, infrastructure projects, better schools, cleaner water, power plants, subvention of environmental technologies, aso). Actually, they should do anything what the USA fails to do in its homeland. That's the only way out. --178.197.225.24 (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Section cleanup

The section titled Exceptional Access Framework - Sovereign Debt seems like a personal opinion and could be a copyvio. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

'United Nations' is a name

'United Nations' is a name, not a description. 'International Business Machines' is another example of a name (as opposed to a description). The expression 'the United Nations' is therefore confused language, like it also would be mistaken to refer to IBM as 'the International Business Machines'.

It would improve the language of this article if United Nations were properly referred to by using its name as just that, a name. That is to say one should refer to UN as simply 'United Nations', and avoid referring to it as 'the United Nations'. Of course this also applies to 'International Monetary Fund' (a name, not a description). --62.16.186.44 (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)