The US Should Leave the International Monetary Fund

My opponent failed to address the two other scenarios I had provided in my argument that support that the IMF is a good organization. My opponent has failed to address and rebut my entire back half of my argument. I will rebut his rebuttals to my argument in order to summarize and conclude this debate. "So even if Argentina eventually leveled out, it was not do to the IMF, as in 2005 the country was already re-investigating the benefits of the deal. "Well interestingly enough, in the exact article you have brought up, it says "At the same time, the study helps rebut criticism that the fund insists on excessive austerity in developing countries. In Argentina's case, the report concluded that officials were too lenient. " So because the government of Argentina and local officials didn't follow the policies set up by the IMF, the crisis deepened and got worse, before leveling out. How can you dare charging a organization with not having positive effects if the organizations rules are not being followed correctly by the country they are trying to help? . http://www.globalpolicy.org... "Greece is a great example of another IMF failure. "All the statistics Pro has listed out are how Greece is failing, not how the IMF is failing in helping Greece. Greece has had years of unrestrained spending, cheap lending and failure to implement financial reforms left Greece badly exposed when the global economic downturn struck. The IMF’s latest quarterly review of Greek progress with reform, released on July 31st, is appreciative of the achievement of the coalition government led by Antonis Samaras so far in reducing deficits. So the IMF has had small success along the road of a long recovery. In addition, the fact that the IMF is admitting it's mistakes in the Greece crisis and advising possibilities that doesn't happened again shows it is a organization that cares and is willing to change. . http://www.economist.com... "The other two examples of return stated by CON are isolated and not fully due to the IMF intervention, in the majority of cases the IMF does not assist. "That sentence is illogical and untrue. Turkey is one of central Europe's leading economic powers as defined by the International Monetary Fund list, Columbia University EMGP List, FTSE list, MSCI list, S&P list, Dow Jones list, Russell list, Frontier Strategy Group (F10) list, BBVA Research, and the Emerging Markets Index. In both cases IMF predominance it substantial and has significantly contributed to economic recovery. This sentence was just grasping for anything to say against my argument. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "Another example is that of 1999 Brazil. .. " First of all, that article is from 1999, there have been huge changes in Brazil since. Brazil in fact also is on most emerging markets lists, just like Turkey. With a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of US$ 2.253 trillion in 2012, Brazil is the world's seventh wealthiest economy. It is also the largest country in area and population in Latin America and the Caribbean. The country will host the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympic Games in 2016, demanding massive investments in areas such as urban and social development and transport infrastructure. Times certainly have changed since 1999 and the IMF has been one of the factors that helped get Brazil back on it's feet. . http://www.worldbank.org...In conclusion, I wanted to say how the IMF had changed. Over the last ten years there has been a quiet revolution in how the International Monetary Fund operates in the poorest countries. IMF conditionalities have eased and are increasingly focused on good financial governance. And its macroeconomic frameworks are more accommodating to governments’ long-term development plans. As one official in an African Ministry of Finance put it, the IMF has turned from ‘dictator to partner’. The IMF is now considering further changes, especially in relation to fragile states. So to blalatly state the IMF is bad, support one's argument with 15 year old articles and not rebut the majority of my points, clearly does not make a good debate. In addition, my opponent has failed to address the fact that the IMF is changing for the better, and failed to address the fact the US is blocking IMF progress in favor of holding more voting power. The US in addition to EU countries are the true evil in the IMF.