Hacker News Reader

To be fair, it is the IMF - their inherent mission is to lend, it's even in their name.

Lend to 3rd world plutocrats, then hold their countries responsible for the debt when they run off with the money.

I'm not agreeing with the strategy, it just seemed like the OP had a problem with what the IMF does. For the IMF to stop, it would have to dissolve.

What does lending government money to other governments have to do with the free market?

The IMF is a lender of last resort. Governments aren't forced to utilize them, and evidence shows that currency devaluation is often a better strategy.

Having unfavorable terms, as you've described, makes the bitter pill of devaluation look a little sweeter.

But in response to your question, I'm not sure how it's not free market. Can you describe specifically what doesn't get covered from the "it's not forced lending" argument?

One government overspends, gets bailed out by a quasi-government entity that is funded by other governments. This is government intervention in currency in debt markets, by definition not laissez faire.

It seems like you have an issue with government-level intervention in general. Is that the case?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com