Well, to argue that the root of all Postmodernist Evil is... David Hume and his fellow philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment... that did seem to me to be a bit rich...
>
> "A couple of years ago everyone seemed to agree that the
>international financial institutions needed major reform. Half the critics
>(the Jeffrey Sachs-Joseph Stiglitz wing, with which I tend to agree)
>believed the
>institutions were too scrooge-like: he IMF was forcing countries into
>deflationary policies that caused severe depressions. Half the critics (the
>Ralph Nader-Wall Street Journal wing) believed the institutions were too
>generous and liberal: the IMF's generosity had encouraged overlending and
>overproduction that had caused widespread crisis. But even though the
>directions of the proposed reforms were directly opposed, everyone seemed
>to agree that such major reforms were absolutely necessary."
>
>Now, could it be that there are other positions? What about agreeing with
>Sachs/Stiglitz but taking the IMF to task for its links to the US treasury,
>its arch ethnocentric universalism, the particular people it effectively
>gave the money to, and what they did with the money?
Well... yes. But my view is that the argument for a kinder, gentler IMF is a loser unless we have a richer, better-funded IMF. The IMF today feels like its institutional survival is at stake in every crisis: that it *must* be paid back or its resources will dwindle down to zero and it will vanish in less than a decade...
Brad DeLong