Talk:International Monetary Fund

1) The World Bank and the World Bank Group are not exactly the same.

2) The IMF is not part of the World Bank nor the World Bank Group.

See http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/0,,contentMDK%3A20046275~menuPK%3A48380~pagePK%3A43912~piPK%3A44037~theSitePK%3A29708,00.html <-- this website doesnt work Bagel7 05:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

The sentence "Vatican City, the Republic of China (Taiwan), the Palestinian Authority and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara) are the non-UN member entities not participating in the IMF" in "Organization and Purpose" needs to be re-written. It does not make sense and I am unable to make out how it should read so I can personally re-write it.

Bias: Power to control governments and information

As it stands, the entry gives no indication of the extent to which the IMF has usurped powers to extend the control that that capitalist organisations have over national governments and information. Much of this came to light as a result of a leaked document entitled Multinational Agreemennt on Investments (MAI). Although the outrage that this provoked led to its demise, its main provisions have been incorporated into standard IMF practice. Two sets of provisions are of the greatest importance. One are the clauses making it illegal in all member countries to say anything that might damage the future profitability of an individual company. Thus the Canadian government was fined billions of dollars for publishing information on the destructive effects of a petrol additive. Whether the information was correct or not was deemed to have nothing to do with the case. The second is a collection of requirements restricting the rights of national governments to introduce legislation protecting the environment because this is deemed likely to interfere with pricing and thus free trade. (This parallels existing components of standard IMF conditinalities for "loans"). In the context of these observations it is important to understand that the court which rules on alleged infringements of such rules consists of 3 (or maybe it is 5) private international corporations. Far from the critiques section being biassed against the IMF it is incomplete in important ways. I don't have time to edit it just now, but hope to do so at some point in the future if no one else gets there first.

Coming back to alleged bias, I note that the references section is virtually devoid of references to critiques, so I will drop in a couple.

Quester67 07:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Quotes section and other areas seem to be overly biased against the IMF.

quote what sections here please Bagel7 05:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I also find significant bias in this article - the remark that "the IMF has come under heavy criticism for failing to properly relieve the situations of poorer countries, and have even been called "Fascist pigs" by several members of the press.", particlarly the "fascist pigs" comment, is unsourced and at best should be in the criticism section, not the "organisation and purpose" section.Pepik70 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

IMF is keynesianistic?

I just don't have the time or language skill or whatsoever to rework the article but want to make an addition:

I thought the IMF favours supply-side economics and does not follow a keynesianistic approach. At least that is what I had kept in my mind after reading Joseph Stiglitz' Globalization and it's discontents (on german) where Stiglitz (former chief economist of the world bank) critisized the IMF as imposing a too restrictive policy on countries the IMF gives loans to. In general, I think it is safe to say that the IMF follows "neoliberal" strategies (e.g. of the washington consensus) and thus is affiliated with monetarism. And in my personal experience of economic policies neoliberalism and monetarism are strongly affiliated with supply-side economics.

---

Keynes and Dexter White were the ones who helped design the Bretton woods system in general. The IMF, along with every other BW institution, is a compromise between the Americans' desire (represented by Dexter) for mulilaterial free trade and fixed exchage and the Brit's desire (represented by Keynes himself) for a more automous trade, fiscal and monetary policy. The IMF finances the balance of payments deficts so that states won't have to devalue their currency like what happend in the 30's and what most state's felt contributed to WW2, or have a recession to adjust their price levels as happended under the gold standard, which would prevent full employment of an economy. It could be argued the IMF is Keynesian in that it was established because markets were believed to be imperfect and failed sometimes.

Keynes, and in turn Britain, was worried that the US would run constant trade surpluses and wanted to have the them fiance the trade deficts they would cause. Keynes wanted higher quotas (presentage of a state's reserve currency, e.g dollars or gold, used for loans) and the US wanted less. I think the number agree was like around $8 billion, way less then the $49 billion that keynes wanted. Still higher than the US's $0.

Anyway, I really don't think the IMF that keynesian or anything. Maybe more neo-liberal after the pegged exchange rate ended. The structual reforms that are conditional in loans, are highly influenced by the Washington consensus in the late 70's-80's. But, remember the BW system is more a compromise. I mean, fixed-but-adjustable-exchange-rate highlights this.

Veto

I've read that US has sole veto power in IMF, can anyone confirm? Mir 01:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a link to an article of a guy who claim the same thing

"There have been some minor adjustments since, but the major developed countries run the show, with only one country, the United States, having effetive veto" (Stiglitz 2003:12). -From 2003 Edition of Globalization and Its Discontents. Alex van Schaick 18:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going back a bit here by commenting on this, but whilst doing my A-level Geography coursework I read in a book on globalisation ('Globalisation', Guinness, P., Hodder & Stoughton, 2003) that this is because the USA holds 17% of the voting power (because of the size of its quota). As any major change to IMF policy requires 85% backing the USA is able to block by itself any proposed change it might not like. I wondered if anyone had any more up to date information on this? - Sophie, 17th January 2006.

United States' voting power at the IMF is 17.08 percent (see http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm). Many decisions at the IMF require 85 precent majority, including the ammendments to the Articles of Agreement, creation of new financing facilities, quota increases, and gold sales. The most reliable way to confirm all of the above and more is to use the web site www.imf.org. For example, you can read there an article about gold, see http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/gold.htm --Klava, March 1 2006

General Arrangements to Borrow

Some day, when someone have time we need to explicitly include a couple of paragraphs of how the fund operates. ie use of General Arrangements to Borrow, Gold Reserve and Special Drawing Rights. A mention of the fact that members are represented by the country's finance minister would help.

• I would be interested in working with wiki editors on clarifying how IMF operates on these discussion pages. Personally, I find the wiki method of trial/error, edit/delete cumbersome & tiring. Would be interested in hearing from administrators willing to help. Thnx nobs

Keynesian IMF?

I a;so think any reference to Keynesian economics shall be removed from the article. Current IMF policies are more in line with liberal economic policies and the monetarist school. Aman--213.172.73.210 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In answer to the Keynesian - neo-liberal debate above: The IMF was instituted in and operated as a short-term credit fund for exchange rate stabilization throughout the Keynesian Welfare State era of 1945 - ~1971. With the removal of the fixed exchange rate system in the early 70s - the orignal role for the IMF was largely defunct. As neo-liberalism took hold in the US and Western Europe through the 70s and 80s, the IMFs role effectively switched to a generic creditor - loaning funds to 'developing' nations on the condition that they restructured their economies in line with neo-liberal and classical economic ideology. Arguably there has been a qualification of this stance with the recent HIPC initiatives, but it is safe to conclude that the IMF remains a neo-liberal institution, much removed from its original mandate.

Tverbeek: Good edit. I agree.Nobs 20:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I dont have time to rework the article either, but in the early 1980s the IMF was purged of its Keynesian elements as far as I know. It most certainly is not a Keynesian institution: although my understanding is limited,its pretty clear that Keynesian economics advocates deficit spending in order to stimulate demand during a depression. The IMF is deadset against such policies and Stiglitz's Globalization and Its Discontents is pretty much attacking the IMF on those grounds.

Alex van Schaick 18:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that the IMF is a generic creditor - that's the World Bank. I would also argue that that the IMF was never Keynesian, since Keynesian policies generally involve government spending to promote growth, or at least to stimulate growth in a downturn. The IMF engages countries which are typically massive overspenders throughout the economic cycle, which is usually why they are in so much trouble. Pepik70 (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

link to wiktionary

I just added a link to wiktionary after the word 'overdraft' (way at the end) because I had to look it up. The reason is that the English version of wikipedia is of course not just for native English speakers (if only because (at the moment) it is the biggest version of wikipedia). I know there's also a simplified English version, but for people like me, who know English well enough to understand almost everything in normal English, that is of course not the preferred choice.

I'd say that if I (or someone with my command of the English language) need to look up a word to understand the article, it deserves a link to wiktionary. Are there any rules on this? Also, I'm not sure I've made the link the right way.

DirkvdM 08:07, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I reformatted the link. In general, you can link to witkionary like this: [[Wiktionary:Overdraft]]. However, I'm not sure if there's a wiki policy on formatting links like that. [[Wiktionary:Overdraft]] renders as Wiktionary:Overdraft. I thought that was ugly, so I tried [[Wiktionary:Overdraft|overdraft]], which renders as overdraft. However, this version looks just like a wikipedia link, which isn't necessarily a good thing. Do we want wikipedia and wiktionary links to look the same? That's why I settled on ([[Wiktionary:Overdraft|definition]]), which renders as (definition). I'm now going to find somewhere to post a question about the nature/formatting of interwiki links... b/c it there certainly needs to be a policy.Feco 08:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ignore all of that above. The page now has the correct wikistyle for interwiki links. I should've looked a little harder before messing around with the styles above. See Wikipedia:How_to_link_to_Wikimedia_projects for more info. Feco

IMF as a Lending Insitution

The article as it is written repeatedly describes the IMF as an International lending instiution. While in recent years the IMF has gotten into the lending business in a limited way(only to assist debtor nations in managing their foreign debt), lending is not the IMF's primary function. Here are samples within the text where this assumption is made:

responsible for managing the global financial system and for providing loans

the World Bank, its twin organization

In order to gain access to IMF loans

IMF was instituted in and operated as a short-term credit fund

IMFs role effectively switched to a generic creditor - loaning funds to 'developing' nations

criticisms from economists have been that financial aid is always bound to so-called "Conditionalities"

limit the amount of money that the organization could use to help debt-ridden countries

IMF interventions aggravate the poverty and the debts

While it was created to help stabilize the global economy, since 1980 over 100 countries have experienced a banking collapse

There is much confusion about the difference between the IMF and its twin organisation the World Bank. On the large scale of things the IMF and World Bank play essentially the same role

Since the IMF is not really a bank, it doesn’t give loans as such. Rather, it has a pool of money from which member countries can borrow when they need to stabilise their currency quickly"

While much of this criticism is valid, there is little discussion of the IMF's purpose. The section header Criticism is very good, but it curiously mingles a discussion of monetarism and exchange rates with lending. Some separation of topics needs to be done.

I would be interested in working with editors to resolve some of the issues.--nobs

I agree. I think some of the specific differences between the world bank and IMF need to be pointed out in the article Lonjers 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We really need this picture on the IMF page

I googled around for the picture the quote below refers to, but i am disappointed i wantn't lucky. I do however think collectively, we wikipedias can eventually find it. The quote is a word to word from Globalization and its Discontents page 40.

"All too often, the Fund's approach to the developing countries has had the feel of a colonial ruler. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a single picture snapped in 1998, shown thoughout the world, has engraved itself in the minds of millions, particularly those in the former colonies. The IMF managing director, Michel Camdessus, a short, neatly dressed former French treasury bureaucrat, who once claimed to be a socialist, is standing with a stern face and crossed arms over the seated and humiliated president of Indonesia. The hapless president was forced, in effect, to turn over economic sovereignty of his country to IMF in return for the aid his country needed. In the end ironically, much of the money went not to help Indonesia but to bail out the "colonial power's" private sector creditors.

Defenders of Camdessus claim the photograph was unfair, that he did not realise that it was being taken and that it was viewed out of context. But that is the point........."

You get the reason i think we need this picture. This book is way cool that i firmly believe it is the best value i have ever got from any book i have ever bought.

Difference Between IMF and World Bank

Anon reverted this section & it's placed here for disccussion.

There is much confusion about the difference between the IMF and its sister organisation the World Bank. The IMF keeps account of trade balances between member states, basically who owes whom how much, as an independent auditor. The World Bank on the other hand, gives more long term loans for more general purposes. What it does, as an investment bank, is essentially to intermediate between lenders and borrowers. It sells bonds to corporations, individuals, and sometimes governments, and lends that money to borrowing governments.

The IMF was originally founded to stabilise countries’ currencies in relation to each other, and to oversee the currency exchange market. Since the IMF is not really a bank, it doesn’t give loans as such. Rather, it has a pool of money from which member countries can borrow when they need to stabilise their currency quickly. This can be compared with an overdraft (Wiktionary - Entry on overdraft) on a current account. All loans from the IMF must be paid back within 5 years.

Nevertheless, I think one should add something about the differences between IMF and World Bank (I don't know for you, but for me it is not obvious). I found this paper on the net: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/exrp/differ/differ.htm . Should it be added at the end (link section) or should one add a paragraph summarizing this information (copyright issue?) ? Nicogla 13:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Asian financial crisis

I think we need to add asian experience under criticism of IMF. After all, Asian countries that received aid from IMF suffer deeper recession than those that refused the aid, i.e. Malaysia and Taiwan (or was it South Korea?) recovered somewhat faster than the rest. __earth 18:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes's opposition to the IMF

I've changed this sentence:

The principal architects of the IMF at the Bretton Woods Conference were Fabian Society member John Maynard Keynes and the Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury, Harry Dexter White.

According to [1], "Keynes was, in fact, its most prominent opponent". Palefire 12:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The truth is somewhere in between. What the IMF turned out to be was not entirely along the lines of Keynes's proposals, but it was vaguely in that direction. Essentially, Keynes wanted an even more radically centralized IMF, complete with a central bank for the world, the Bancor. The final IMF proposal that was accepted was much less radical than that, but it wouldn't be accurate to say that Keynes opposed it either---it contained many of his ideas, but simply didn't go nearly as far as he would've liked. --Delirium 22:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Initial MassFunction

Although the Initial Mass Function is still a stub, there is a ambiguity between that article and this one... Both canbe referred to as IMF.

Article Vandalized

This article has been vandalized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.232.148 (talk • contribs) .

Someone has fixed it. Johnleemk | Talk 18:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Anne O. Krueger

Anne O. Krueger was never an IMF Managing Director. She has been the First Deputy Managing Director since September 1, 2001.

Time between the end of the term of Horst Köhler and the beginning of the term of Rodrigo de Rato is about the same as the period between Camdessus and Köhler, however Camdessus's first deputy is not considered to have been the Managing Director during that time, and neither is Anne O. Krueger according to the IMF website:

http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/chron/mds.asp

http://www.imf.org/external/np/omd/bios/ak.htm

Lotvas 19:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Assistance and reforms

I've expanded on this section to include the function of the IMF and of the SAPs, which was missing from the article.Jackson744 23:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

It appears that this article is in major need of a cleanup. The language at some points is difficult to understand and the ideas seem a little scattered. As I know little about the subject matter, I will refrain. Agentcdog 07:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Inception

Two different dates are given as the date when the IMF came into existence - December 1945 and May 1946. Which one is right? Paddyman1989 09:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs cleanup and removal of bias.

I don't know enough about the subject to do so myself.

Bias

"Whatever the feelings people in the Western world have for the IMF, research by the Pew Research Center shows that more than 60 percent of Asians and 70 percent of Africans feel that the IMF and the World Bank have a positive effect on their country [4]. This may largely be due to the fact that the media and textbooks in developing countries' schools describe the IMF as having a positive role in their countries, despite the increase in poverty, increase in the debt-burden, and reduction of economic growth that IMF opponents argue its policies have resulted in."

The last sentence is extremely biased and remains uncited. Increase and poverty, debt-burden, and such as well as the fact that media and textbooks describe the IMF as positive all need to be cited in some way.

"Washington Consensus" is a descriptive term used in professional and academic settings as shorthand for the neoliberal policies described. It's not really fair to describe it as a derisive appellation, since both friends and foes use it. Cdoten 06:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with [User:Cdoten|Cdoten]], the phrase 'Washington Consensus' was coined by the economist John Williams, who was clearly not a critic of it! Not only is it used by both supporters and critics as shorthand for the policy package, it's also useful because it highlights the fact that it is the IMF, World Bank and US Treasury (all DC based, thus the name) who have promoted them. If you have access, see Williamson's 1993 article in World Development (28/8 p.1329) for more details. Since no-one has disagreed with [User:Cdoten|Cdoten]] I've gone ahead and made the edit.

--81.154.27.117 11:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article, particularly the criticisms, seems to miss the point that the countries working with the IMF are in trouble already. Associating the IMF with crises is like associating the fire department with fires - of course the fire department is associated with fires, but not because they are arsonists. Pepik70 (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant?

The article includes the text:

The Vatican City, Hong Kong of the PRC (HKMA), Macao of the PRC (MAM), Taiwan, Palestinian Authority and the Sahrawi Republic are the other entities not participating in the IMF.

I am not sure why this entry is necessary/useful. None of these entities has its own currency, so that there is no reason to expect they would participate in the IMF.

I am contemplating deleting this entry and would be glad for your comments.

--Philopedia 01:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dont remember what they used in Macao but HK has its own currency, the Hong Kong Dollar, even after incorporation into the PRC

Yes, both HK and Macao have their own currencies. Also, many other states that don't have a currency are members of the IMF. Also in the other part of this list were the more notable entities - non-members of the IMF - some independent states, but now the whole phrase is missing. Alinor 13:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I also consider these to be irrelevant exceptions.Pepik70 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wish to edit article

I would like to make a few changes to this article on the IMF, and I wanted to test the water before plunging in. So, I'm sort of writing to ask for a mandate to do so. The kinds of things I feel need improving are:

1) In Organisation and Purpose: criticism of Ricardo's theory does not flow. Needs to be a footnote or something

2) In Organisation and Purpose: the praise for the IMF in the third to last paragraph is POV. If it goes anywhere, it shouldn't be in the description of the organisation and purpose. There may be many reasons why there has been no Great Depression during the time since the IMF was founded - the causal link implied here is not qualified. Secondly, the paragraph picks out one piece of economic 'good news' without mentioning any economic 'bad news'. For example there have indeed been many depressions; there have been huge economic crises in many countries (mostly developing); and poverty and inequality has grown.

3) The Criticism. It makes some good points, but it would be good if it was re-arranged a bit. I can see that critics of the IMF have written lots of scattered thoughts, and then defenders have thrown in additions which make the whole thing quite scatty.

4) In the Criticism. The IMF is definitely not Keynesian. It was founded upon Keynesian notions but has transformed. The economic theories it is based on were developed by economists working within the IMF during the 50s, post-John Maynard Keynes. I can see this has come up in the discussion, and yet no one has done anything to rectify it in the text.

5) In the Criticism. Something must be done about this reference to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey data (70% of Africans favour the IMF). Such data is quite frankly useless. How many Africans know what the IMF is and does? (I'm not being racist here - how many Americans what it is either). Assuming the interviewer perhaps gives them some hint that it's a western-based organisation, and knowing that the interviewer represent a western organisation, it's not surprising that respondents say they think it's positive. Far more sensible is to consider the many genuine critics of the IMF in the 3rd World - Stiglitz is a good starting point for finding out about them. Saamah 17:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Internal Corruption

I see that no discussion on the internal corruption within IMF takes place in this article. The issue of lavish holdiday parties, nepotism, funtionality of the internal dispute resolution system, IMF Tribunal -should all be discussed in this article. As it stands the article is biased and heavily favors IMF.

Refrain from editing the article in such a manner. Please find a objective article or book etc that discusses the criticisms you are asserting. Once you've done so, it becomes something worthy of inclusion. Sephui 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

From Scout :: Regarding the Pew Global Attitudes Survey data (70% of Africans feel positively about IMF/WB/WTO). This information is incredibly misleading. I sat down and went through the couple hundred pages of that report. This statistic is simply not representative of Africa as a whole. In fact, only ten countries were included (Angola, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda) while there are over 50 countries in the continent, all of which are IMF member states (excepting Western Sahara, one of the most sparsely populated territories in the world). Furthermore, the sample sizes in each country were incredibly small -- the majority under 1,000 people and often centered in urban areas (102, 161). Less than 10,000 people cannot statistically reflect the views of an entire continent. It is also clear that those living in abject poverty are not being well-represented in the survey, though they are the ones more likely to feel negatively towards IMF and World Bank strategies. Almost 18% of African people surveyed were internet-users, 15.6% owned a cell phone, and 31.5% watch international news on television (my calculated averages, statistics 101-103). If we use access to modern technology as a partial indicator of wealth, we can assume that those surveyed were not the majority of Africans facing the 'short end of the stick' regarding structural adjustment programmes, conditionalities, privatization, etc. Let's remove this stat, please, or drastically change its wording.

It's an actual poll and it should be included. Any criticisms you or I may have of it are original research and should not be included. If you can cite a reputable source criticizing the poll, then that criticism can be included.--Jsorens (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Economic Positions

OK is the World Bank the More Neo liberal and Powerful and of the two institutions?--J intela 17:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What Does This Mean?

• "World trade declined sharply, as did employment and living standards in many countries."

When? Does this refer to the Great Depression, or the effects of the IMF's activities. The context is entirely unclear.

• "Vatican City, the Republic of China (Taiwan), the Palestinian Authority and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara) are the non-UN member entities not participating in the IMF, although the Palestinian Authority currently receives IMF technical assistance."

So... these countries are not members of the UN, and are not associated with the IMF? If so, then why are they being discussed. If not, then how can the language be improved. Can these actually be the only four "entities" that are not a part of either organization?zadignose 01:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Poor quality of this article

I find this article extremely poor. I realize that IMF is an extremely controversial subject. Unfortunately that has led to quite a bit of editing and injection of things that are either irrelevant or political. Examples:

- History Section

• It starts with "In the Great Depression of the 1930s, economic activity in the major industrial nations slumped." and continues talking about "Ricardian comparative advantage". What does one have to do with the other and in which fashion does that relate to history?
• "The statutory purposes of the IMF today are the same as when they were formulated in 1944". So what? How does that relate to the history itself? shouldn't that appear - if at all - in the secion IMF today?
• "capitalist world experienced unprecedented growth in real incomes." A kind of weird formula. Most people talk in terms of political entities and not in ideological structures. It does not make sense.
• "Rapid advances in technology and communications have contributed to the increasing international integration of markets and to closer linkages among national economies. As a result, financial crises, when they erupt, now tend to spread more rapidly among countries." How does that passage relate to the history?

- Data Dissemination Systems

• Why this Passage there? Wouldn't it be more sensible to talk about structures first? Why is it so important that is gets all that passage

- IMF/World Bank support of Military Dictatorships

• I realize the political issues at play here, but a table of that size? I thought it is a Discussion about the World Bank itself. I don't want to suppress anything, but shouldn't it be found in the Criticism Area and maybe more proportional? It might be sensible to put the table itself on a separate page, if people feel so strongly about it and take only 2 or 3 cases from that.

--Ebralph 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ebralph, it should be in the criticism area and taking up so much space with this point seems excessive. Pepik70 (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the article is of poor quality. All of the factual information can be obtained in a more precise and reliable form from the official IMF website imf.org. The various opinions (both favorable and unfavorable) have been better expressed and documented in the academic literature, almost none of which is cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.168.214 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

China Added to 'IMF support of Military Dictatorships' list?

With the evidence of human rights violations and repression from Reporters without borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty etc. in China. I think it makes sense to label them as a military dictatorship, and should therefore be added to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.169.47 (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Top 20 member countries list

The table under section IMF Members' Quotas and Voting Power, and IMF Board of Governors, titled Table showing the top 20 member countries in terms of voting power: is sorted alphabetically. If it is to be consistent with the table title then shouldn't the table be sorted by voting power? Any objections? --Daleh ^T 09:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay

Shouldn't Uruguay be added to the list of members under a military dictatorship? Didn't want to add it myself because i am a wikipedia newbie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.213.213 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Presidents

Don't we need a list of Presidents just as there is a list of Managing Directors? 152.23.195.16 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotas don't add up

The Table referring to the Quota adds up to 101.49 Percent of Voting Rights, clearly one of the countries with 1.49 Percent Voting Rights is counted twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.182.229 (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Moi ≠ Dictator

Moi may not have been the best president ever, but as an elected official, I don't think its right to have him listed on the table as a dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSix (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

make up mind on creation/organization date

1. "The International Monetary Fund was created in 1944"

2. "The International Monetary Fund was formally created in July 1944 "

3. "The IMF was formally organized on December 27, 1945,"

while #1 and #2 are essentially the same, why repeated? and then how to make agreement with #3?

perhaps article in general is in need of a hard read and cleanup. don't have time (or relevant knowledge) at moment.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)