of course they'd say that, why would they want to lose the ability in destroying countries' financial stabilities?
(That's not to say that their help doesn't tend to have adverse side effects, just that the IMF isn't generally doing anything to your economy if you have stability around to destroy.)
"They're not so bad. They only exploit the desperate."
That the description of them destroying stability has a false premise. I mean, how much more explicit could be?
If you are looking for a secret ulterior motive, the difficulty is because there isn’t one.
More seriously, that's not what GP meant at all. GP's point is that IMF usually steps in only after a country managed to paint itself into a financial corner - at this point there's no "nice" solution any more, and you're guaranteed to deal with mass unemployment, people losing their life savings, inflation, and so on.
Of course the debate is ongoing whether IMF's proposed solutions are actually in the best interest of the countries on the receiving end, but you know, if they don't like the deal these countries can always refuse it.
If Bitcoin was actually some country's currency, that country would have imploded by now. Hyperdeflation is just as deadly to an economy as hyperinflation
-
To the replies about other things affected by those factors: You're kind of making my point. We have countries that built their economies entirely on oil... the ones that diversified seem to be doing just a tad better.
BTC is not saving any economies. It might save some individuals which is not nothing, but please let's not pretend the IMF has some kind of conspiracy against BTC to maintain their control...
Definitely don't do Forex, or oil, or any commodities trading really.
WRT forex trading, has there been a "random whale" event in say, a top 15 economy, since Black Wednesday?