The US Should Leave the International Monetary Fund
I, con, will be arrguing that the IMF is more benefitial then detrimental.
I will also be arguing that the US should not leave the IMF.
Since you specified it, the burden of proof for each side is to prove their view to be true and the opposing view is false.
I am looking forward to a constructive argument round and Welcome to debate.org.
1. The IMF is putting forward and supporting a flawed model for development.
"The IMF forces countries from the Global South to prioritize export production over the development of diversified domestic economies (Global Exchange)." What this policy does is move the agricultural business from providing for the destitute and hungry citizens of its own country to supplying food for wealthier nations. This creates a food disparity and this change also perpetuates poverty, instead of ending.
2. Loaning money to governments who do not have fully free economies, which is a practice the IMF uses, promotes corruption and greed instead of growth.
What the IMF is doing with this practice is rewarding countries who do not actually have free markets or economies. By doing so, you are not promoting these government to work towards a better economy, you are simply teaching them to rely on these handouts. As the Heritage Foundation points out: "In sum, after receiving IMF funds for an average of 42 years (except Russia, which first received funds in 1992), the economies of most of the IMF recipients are today "mostly unfree" according to the Index--except Mexico and Argentina, which are only marginally better. As a result, the recipient countries' per capita income went from between $259 and $5,419 in the 1960s to between $494 and $6,579 in 2002. South Korea is the only country that grew and developed to a significant degree, today enjoying a per capita income of $14,280; but the reasons for that development are an extensive opening of the economy and the preservation of a strong rule of law--a very different story from other IMF recipients." And what we can see from these stats is that governments will be corrupt no matter what the IMF tries to supply them with, therefore the current system of the IMF is useless, and a waste of American money.
3. IMF quota system ensures only major economies get a voice, and that you must buy your votes.
The current quota system, as shown by the IMF site, is based on the money you can put into the IMF organization. This leaves the United States and Europe with the lump sum of votes (Global Exchange). While this does give the United States more say, it is not a just system and undermines the intent of the International Monetary Fund. And since this is the system the IMF uses and has used, the United States must not stand for this corruption and domination.
4. IMF, and its partner the World Bank, hurt the environment
In a Yale study done on the effects of the IMF in correlation to deforestation show that there is a link between the two. In addition, the report describes that the date given by these two organizations is very suspicious. The reasoning is as follows: "Out of our total sample of 2,258 country-year observations, there are 1,647 observations that are coded zero. For some of these countries, where there is very little forest area, this is reasonable, for other countries it is highly suspicious. Note that the zeroes are distinct from the World Bank convention of coding missing data as ".." We suspect, however, that some of the zeroes should have in fact been coded as missing values. Thus, we re-ran the entire analysis above using only the observations for which a non-zero value for deforestation was recorded. The qualitative results were the same. Indeed, they were strengthened (Vreeland, Sturn & Durbin 24)." So this shows a possible attempt to lessen the apparent correlation between the environment and the IMF. Either way, the conclusion that the IMF is detrimental is supported.
5. Reform won't work
Many people propose simple reforms instead of complete abolition, but there are too many problems as shown with the IMF. It is a dead and counter-productive system that needs to be scrapped and not supported by the United States of America.
So based on these reasons, the United States must no longer monetarily support the IMF or openly participate in it. I urge all voters to vote a pro ballot.
Source List (I apologize for not MLA citing them, but I am on my phone for the time being):
Alright, lets get started.
I will lay my major arguments out in this round.
First, I would like to point out that the resolution "the IMF is bad" and "the US should leave the IMF" are too very different claims made by PRO, but he only addressed the first one.
I will be providing counter arguments for BOTH resolutions.
To say that the IMF has no beneficial effects and not look at their history is clearly not the way to go, therefore I will be giving concrete examples of the past where the IMF has helped the world community.
The list goes on, and many more success stories can be reiterated, but let me stop here, to make a point. The IMF has, and has shown it's great potential of bailing out devastated economy's and bring them to rising economic powers in modern day.
Now obviously, this is not how every IMF story has gone, but painting the IMF as demonic, without looking at the big picture is the obvious wrong way to go.
On a smaller note, the IMF a few days ago has offered financial aid to the Ukraine, in response for their call for help needing more then $35 billion dollars. The Ukraine plans to invite these plans and welcomes any non Russian aid. (http://www.zerohedge.com...)
Now having prove the IMF to have mostly positive impacts, I will address the fact that the US should not leave the IMF.
The US has in fact caused and contributed to many of the problems the "IMF" has caused, in quotes here since it is obviously the US responsibility here. For example, the "countries are fed up with the United States' failure to ratify a four-year-old deal to restructure the emergency lender." The deal would actually take away voting rights from western European Countries and the US, and give them to the new emerging economic powers. So the reason that the IMF is unbalanced and makes sure that only superpowers get a voice IS BECAUSE the US inability to make progressive changes and ratify this deal.
"The IMF cannot remain paralyzed and postpone its commitments to reform." On this statement, the US is being threatened by the potential of losing veto rights.
Also, some of the new economic superpowers, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, are actively planning an alternative to the IMF. The BRICS are now in active conversation over this idea, and it may happen if the US fails to ratify the deal by the end of the year. (http://www.zerohedge.com..., http://www.theglobeandmail.com...)
jdean1 forfeited this round.
Tore_Mihror forfeited this round.
http://www.globalpolicy.org...) "It would have been an ugly crisis anyway, but perhaps not quite as bad if the fund had supported a change in strategy earlier," said Isabelle Mateos y Lago, an economist from the IMF's Independent Evaluation Office, the group that made the internal IMF audit. 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.
Greece is a great example of another IMF failure, (http://www.imf.org..., http://www.npr.org...) "There were also notable failures. Market confidence was not restored, the banking system lost 30 percent of its deposits, and the economy encountered a much deeper-than-expected recession with exceptionally high unemployment. Public debt remained too high and eventually had to be restructured, with collateral damage for bank balance sheets that were also weakened by the recession. Competitiveness improved somewhat on the back of falling wages, but structural reforms stalled and productivity gains proved elusive." So as we can see, the IMF does not help in any way.
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.
Another example is that of 1999 Brazil, where in the Cato Institute said "Yet another financial crisis has arrived, this time in Brazil. It wasn"t supposed to happen: last fall, Washington replenished the treasury of the International Monetary Fund, which then organized a $41.5 billion loan package to bolster the Brazilian economy. Brazil"s experience demonstrates yet again that the IMF is a problem, not a solution." (http://www.cato.org...)
Finally, my opponent claims I am not following the resolution, but why should the US support a bad organization. If I can prove the IMF is not beneficial then the US should leave and not support it. It is an unfair system that does not promote economic tranquility for the globe.
I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate, with us both accidentally skipping a round. Thanks to anyone who votes and I urge you all to vote Pro/Aff
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.
I would like to thank my opponent for bringing this intersting topic up and having this great debate.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|