everything's really ok

Seth Ackerman SAckerman at FAIR.org
Wed Oct 11 15:59:35 PDT 2000


No, Brad. You're wrong. Nader does not say moral hazard is "the problem" with the IMF. And there is not "no distinction" between Nader's critique and the Meltzer critique.

Nader says moral hazard is *a* problem with the IMF. (Are you saying moral hazard doesn't exist?) But he directs most rhetorical fire at IMF lending conditionalities, which he opposes wholesale. Meltzer wants *more* conditions. That is a distinction. Who's on the Scrooge side of that debate?

Why do you always ignore the issue of IMF conditions?

Seth


> ----------
> From: Brad DeLong[SMTP:delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU]
> Reply To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 5:52 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: everything's really ok
>
> >The most galling part is the line that says Nader thinks the IMF is too
> >"generous and liberal." Brad, of course, puts himself in the category of
> >those who want the IMF to be more generous.
>
> He does. When I heard Nader talk--when I debated Marc Weisbrot--they
> said that the problem with the IMF was that it loaned money to
> countries in trouble and thus created moral hazard. No distinction
> between their position and that of Allan Meltzer or Robert Bartley.
> They think the problem with the IMF is that it "distorts" the capital
> market away from its optimal laissez-faire functioning...
>
> F****** unbelievable.
>
>
> Brad DeLong
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list