1. So far as I can remember, I never said anything during the Kosovo debate in response to you. In fact I think I said only one thing during the entire thread.
2. RE: my cynicism, I think you mistake it for making a simple point. If you want to change the terms of debt, it means changing the political terms on which debts get dealt with. There were any number of Tobin Tax like proposals on the table right after the Asian crisis, but not a single one was taken seriously by the IMF. Indeed, the IMF did everything it could to preserve the policy status quo after Southeast Asia. No Tobin Tax. No Chilean-style inflow surcharges. No non-accleration clauses on loans. No Clinton plan. No regulations on short-term cross-border lending. Nothing. In my mind, the idea of helping Africa by way of the IMF at present is wishful thinking, not reformism.
3. If you want those institutions reformed, it seems to me you got to begin with the political cultures in the G-7--and especially the U. S. and Great Britain. Until their political representatives feel themselves beholden to something other than Anglo-American neoliberalism, nothing like IMF reform is gonna happen.
4. No, by the way, I'm not necessarily in favor of "world government," whatever that means. We've already got a version of that--you called it U.S. hegemony. Do I want a fairer playing field in world governance? Yes. Do I think the IMF in its present incarnation is committed to that? No.
5. As for being mechanical, superficial, shallow, unimaginative, and condescending. Hmmm. What were we talking about?
Christian