The IMF

The Washington Post recently offered an advertorial for the IMF, which helps tell you how to think about the IMF

The IMF is not out of the woods: In the absence of crises it is lending less, which puts a strain on its budget. But the IMF is worth preserving, even if perhaps in a new form. The world has few competent global institutions that can help manage global problems, and it would be careless to lose one of them.

Does the International Monetary Fund actually make worldwide economic markets more stable? The Wikipedia article on the IMF is doubtful:

Overall the IMF success record is limited. While it was created to help stabilize the global economy, since 1980 over 100 countries have experienced a banking collapse that reduced GDP by four percent or more, far more than at any previous time in history.

In How the IMF Sank Argentina we get a view of the IMF that reminds us why it still exists

AS Argentina's government was resigning in the face of full-scale riots and protests from every sector of society, a BBC-TV reporter asked me whether this economic and political meltdown would change the way people saw the International Monetary Fund. I wanted to say yes, but I had to tell him: "It really depends on how the media reports it."

So far it looks as if the IMF is getting off easy, again. The Fund and the World Bank -- the world's two most powerful financial institutions -- learned an important lesson from their brief spate of bad publicity during the Asian economic crisis a few years ago. They have become masters of the art of "spinning" the news.

Even when there is no news or controvercy, they are still busy spinning away, reminding the world of how important they are and why we need them.

As one learns more about investment, publishing, and business models; while also increasing their own exposure, it gets quite hard to trust much of the media.

Posted at September 3, 2006 12:54 PM