However, the IMF is an institution typical of "Third Epoch" Capitalism: a nominally public, but substantially privatized, organization. If you look at it a bit more closely, you'll see that this is what 'privatization' really means in actual practice - the dissolution of the traditional distinction between public and private.
The IMF will no more work in the "public interest" than will the State of California, should it ever actually take over electrical power production and distribution, despite being much more publicly accessible. The institutional impossibility of democracy with respect to both makes this a certainty.
As for the financial issue, an expanded funding base for the IMF will merely permit the further expansion of the pool of debt / speculation, until it reaches the new limit to the IMF's capacity to subsidize such financial activity. That is why the IMF is permitted to exist. DeLongs' theory, even if it were valid on the face of it, tells us that the IMF will revert to 'sadomonetarism' as this limit is approached.
Now, back to the interesting debate over Washington's Grand Naval Strategy (i.e., Rumsfeld)...
-Brad Mayer Oakland CA
At 11:48 PM 5/18/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 17:10:09 -0700
>From: Brad DeLong <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU>
>Subject: RE: Restructuring, Default & Debt Reduction
>
> > Brad DeLong wrote:
> >
> >> $500 billion? (They not only have to have enough, they have to have
> >> so much that everyone is sure they have enough.)
> >.
> >How do you know Meltzer wouldn't support giving the IMF $500 billion in
> >exchange for turning it into a simple lender of last resort?
> >
> >Seth
>
>
>He might. His position has been moving rapidly since early November...
>
>
>Brad DeLong