The IMF is a powerful global organization, especially in the economic sphere. According to its website, the group “works to achieve sustainable growth and prosperity for all of its 190 member countries.” It supports policies that promote “financial stability and monetary cooperation” as these are essential to increasing “productivity, job creation, and economic well-being.” The IMF has three key missions: “furthering international monetary cooperation, encouraging the expansion of trade and economic growth, and discouraging policies that would harm prosperity.”
To fulfill these missions, IMF member countries work collaboratively with each other and with other international bodies. Critics have noted some problems with this organization. For one, a 2002 study of academic work on the IMF shows, “no consensus on the long-term effects of IMF programs on growth”. While some research has found that IMF loans reduce the odds of future banking crises, other studies have determined that these loans “can increase the risk of political crises.” Activist Titus Alexander has argued that the IMF is a pillar of “global apartheid,” with developed nations seen to have a dominant role over less developed countries.
Originally established as part of the Bretton Woods system as World War 2 came to an end, this global institution was established in response to horrendous economic conditions associated with the Great Depression and the wreckage of World War 2. Since then, it’s gained power orchestrating a system of country debt, monetary policy and more.
Does Conditionality Undermine National Institutions?
In 2006, ActionAid’s analyst Akanksha Marphatia said that IMF policies undermine African development goals, “due to imposed restrictions that prevent spending on important sectors, such as education and health.” Economist Jeffrey Sachs has argued that the IMF’s “usual prescription is ‘budgetary belt tightening to countries who are much too poor to own belts.’” And some argue that “conditionality” undermines national political institutions. “The recipient governments are sacrificing policy autonomy in exchange for funds, which can lead to public resentment of the local leadership for accepting and enforcing the IMF conditions. Political instability can result from more leadership turnover as political leaders are replaced in electoral backlashes. IMF conditions are often criticized for reducing government services, thus increasing unemployment.” Last, the IMF has advocated for “austerity programs” involving cutting public spending and raising taxes even for weak economies.
Enter the Pandemic
Of note, the IMF was ready during the pandemic placing mass vaccination as a fundamental prerequisite for economic recovery out of the pandemic. Want to know why the 70% herd immunity targets were established early on during the pandemic by the World Health Organization and even Dr. Anthony Fauci? Think IMF.
Vaccinate, Calibrate, Accelerate
In the Managing Director’s Global Policy Agenda for 2021, pdf linked here, the globalist financial policy institute announced a program of “Vaccinate, Calibrate, Accelerate.”
They noted that “Urgent policy action is needed to control the pandemic, limit [economic] scarring, and transform the global economy.” (Emphasis added.) Pandemic-induced “divergences” among nations are, “driven by stark differences in access to vaccines and policy space.”
At the time of the 2021 publication, Delta was spreading rapidly and, “the threat of new variants adds further uncertainty to the outlook.” Importantly, already study data in Israel, USA and elsewhere was making it apparent that boosters would be needed due to the confluence of a mutating vaccine evading pathogen and a vaccine with questionable durability. The key here is that by this time the IMF had to have been aware that the vaccine at the time did not control transmission.
Back to the IMF policy—All this in the context of “a climate emergency that demands immediate action, while we also navigate the new opportunities, and risks, of the digital revolution.” IMF priorities are to 1) “vaccinate the world population to stem the spread of the pandemic,” 2) “calibrate policies to limit scarring, support the recovery, and counter growing divergences within and between countries,” and 3) “accelerate the transformation of the global economy to achieve a more inclusive, greener, and digital recovery.” (Emphasis added.)
Focusing first on mass vaccination, IMF offers that, “Global cooperation to expedite universal vaccination is vital to secure the global recovery and limit health and economic divergences.” (Emphasis added.) They complain that while vaccination rates were at about 58% in the advanced economies at the time of the 2021 publication, in low-income nations under 5% were jabbed. “The global goal to vaccinate at least 40 percent of the population in all countries by end-2021 and 70 percent by mid-2022 remains a priority.”
What was calibration? Here the IMF emphasized to national decision makers to seize on the moment toward a new global reality declaring:
“Policies should be calibrated to the evolving pandemic conditions and available policy space to support the recovery, counter growing divergences, and limit scarring.”
In terms of monetary policy, inflation risks pose “vexing” challenges for all policymakers, “as fluctuating infection rates translate into unprecedented swings in economic activity.” And rapid food inflation, “poses a particular challenge to economic and political stability in many emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs).” Clearly, the IMF was concerned about what has actually occurred with inflation rates not seen in decades.
The organization further advanced that “timely and tailored surveillance” is vital to its mission in order to avoid “stop-start recoveries” in our time of unprecedented economic uncertainty. This allows IMF decision-makers to receive “well calibrated policy advice.”
For nations mired in structural setbacks based on the pandemic, “our analyses of the pandemic’s impact on labor markets, productivity, and private sector viability will help inform policy advice. To provide a more systematic assessment of the effective policy mix to achieve growth and stability objectives given differing country circumstances, we will continue to work on operationalizing the Integrated Policy Framework and complete the review of the Institutional View on the Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows.”
In addition to embracing national policy market to pivot the IMF argued why not put the pedal to the metal and accelerate the transformations made possible by COVID-19:
“Policymakers should seize the moment to accelerate the transformation of the global economy. The global economy is faced with a sweeping range of disruptive forces—the existential threat posed by climate change, a technological revolution, growing disparities in income and opportunity, demographic shifts, and political polarization, compounding divergences across and within countries. Decisively tackling these issues, to both counter the risks and capitalize on the opportunities, will be essential to strengthening resilience and long-term sustainability.” (Italics added.)
Here we can see most clearly the admission that, in addition to its existence as an illness, COVID-19 is admittedly being used by policy makers as a very real policy tool to achieve pre-existing political and economic goals. Does this mean that the pathogen was somehow contrived, planned? Not necessarily. Conspiracies of this magnitude are extremely difficult but not necessary given a wise person from this author’s past declared “history is a series of coincidences.”
The IMF specifies goals around climate change and what they call “digitization,” the former calling for an “International carbon price floor” as well as other initiatives [could the digital vaccine passport merely be a conditioning mechanism]?
Per IMF, “The diffusion of digital technologies and knowledge will create new opportunities for economic advancement, inclusion, and resilience; but also, challenges.” And this requires a “digital transformation agenda” at IMF that, perhaps vaguely said, “matches the needs of [its] members.”
A top priority is to, “continue to deepen [IMF] expertise on digital money and fintech and advance analytical work on the implications of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) on the International Monetary System, including on capital flows, and the Global Financial Safety Net.” IMF also seeks to “promote greater efficiency and transparency of public financial management, improved public service delivery, and enhanced revenue administration, we will support the digital transformation of governments on fiscal operations and policies.”
Through a Gender Lens
The IMF document also shows us that in addition to changes to the economy and technology, COVID-19 should be used to pursue liberal, redistributive, and equitable social goals. Calling for inclusion and good governance they state they, “will expand the breadth and depth of inclusion issues in country work and scale up its distributional impact analysis.”
In language which might have been considered odd a decade ago, they note “We are developing a gender strategy to strengthen our analysis of gender issues and apply a ‘gender lens’ to the core operations of the Fund.”
Last, they note that “to remain representative of our membership and operationally relevant, we will continue our efforts on diversity and inclusion, implement modernization projects to improve efficiency, and reduce our carbon footprint under the new hybrid work model.”
What’s Going On?
What does this all mean? Yet another example of those in power using elite liberal social goals as a cover for greater consolidation of money and power. In any event, the blatant use of COVID-19 to achieve collateral goals should not sit well with the public, already wary of the COVID regime.