IMF's Structural Adjustment Programs make more damage

The actions they have taken, the demands for "structural reform" ( which is neo-liberal code for dismantling the rights of labour and social programs) are deeply harmful to everyone except a tiny group of elites. Nature itself is secondary to the interests served by the IMF.

The IMF is an Imperial institution enforcing the power of the global elite.

You probably are not surprised at the title. Neither over the badly stigmatized fact that "the goal of the rich" was always financially to ensnare the poor and then to live from interest of loans that the poor can not return. In this circus, the IMF plays the role of a devil's lawyer.

That's how the world works. John Perkins, an "economic killer" in the service of US government agencies, listened nicely in his book.

Below is a small part of a transcript from a RealNews show that, with one of the authors of the study (Lawrence King of the University of Massachusetts Amherst), reveals how the IMF is deliberately harming countries - countries that are supposed to get some help from them.

source:global gdb scale

LAWRENCE KING: Well, the paradox is that in our paper we talk about that the IMF, one of the stated goals of the IMF is to reduce corruption but the paradox is that these policies and especially privatization policies, end up increasing corruption. This happens through various mechanisms.
source: lawrence king

In theory, the majority of the people in democracy influence or decide, depending on the distribution of income. In practice, this is not true and economists have put forward a series of explanations over the past decades, why "democracy" has not been able to stop the increase in inequality. French economist Thomas Piketty explains why traditional left parties are no longer a workers' and lower middle class.

In January, he presented the results of a study for the period between 1948 and 2017, showing how the democratic party in the US and the socialist party in France gradually reduced the influence of voters without higher or university education. Today, both parties are dominated by highly educated voters whose interests are fundamentally different from those of the working class. One of the main Piketty conclusions is that Thomas B. Edsall writes in the New York Times that voters who do not feel more represented in traditional parties turn to populism.

Inequality in democracy should at least partially be regulated on its own, because the average voter, in order to prevent increasing inequality, requires more distribution.