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
>