The International Monetary Fund is a great deal for America

With the arrival of delegates around the world next week for the Spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund, the issue will be at the top of their minds whether the Trump administration is supporting the organization. I asked the administration fairly about what America gets from many international organizations, and the project called 2025 to withdraw from the International Monetary Fund.

But the International Monetary Fund is a great deal for the United States that supports vital American interests, enhances our economy and does not cost taxpayers. If the United States is from the International Monetary Fund, then there will be only one winner: China. But the box needs to focus better on its agenda and return to the basics.

The International Monetary Fund has long supported US national security. When financial crises erupted, the Republican and Democratic Administration turned into the International Monetary Fund as the first respondent in the world. Reagan and HW Bush departments called on the International Monetary Fund to address Latin debt crises in the eighties of the last century and support reforms in Eastern Europe, especially Poland and the Baltic countries, to help them liberate the Soviet repression. The fund was effective in responding to the Asian crisis in the late 1990s. The George W. Bush administration asked the International Monetary Fund to help address the repercussions of the global financial crisis, and it was a major player across the eurozone crisis. The Trump administration has supported the International Monetary Fund to support developing countries during the epidemic.

Today, the Fund helps countries of great geopolitical and economic attention to America – including Egypt, Jordan and Ukraine – and plays a major role in addressing poverty and corruption in many poor countries, including Africa and half of our ball. Treasury Secretary Scott Besent’s last trip to Buenos Aires to support the Economic Reform Program in Argentina, supported by the International Monetary Fund, also stresses the importance of the fund for the interests of the United States.

The International Monetary Fund enhances us with economic well -being. When systemic crises occur abroad, they definitely leak, which harms Americans. A few years ago, Europe-five of the Global GDP-was in the crisis, which could have been absent from the International Monetary Fund. During the Asian crisis, the disturbances in Thailand, Indonesia and Korea struck the demand for American agricultural products such as corn, wheat and soybeans. Even in irregular countries, they hurt the crises of citizens, especially the poorest. The International Monetary Fund’s support makes developing countries more flexible, allowing them to stand on their feet, which reduces the need for our external aid.

The International Monetary Fund is a great financial deal for America. The United States is the largest contributor to the fund, which gives us a tremendous effect (if not the veto power) on the main decisions and financial decisions. When the International Monetary Fund participates in its natural lending, it derives from the members’ share lines. For the United States, this means when we put one dollar, other countries were placed in three to four. For our dollar, the fund gives us a claim to obtain benefits. Over time, these clouds and demands are equal. We derive regulatory benefits from our International Monetary Fund’s participation at a cost of approximately zero.

If the United States is from the International Monetary Fund, China wins. Our influence allows us to form the International Monetary Fund to achieve American priorities. China, despite nearly 20 percent of the global economy, is the third largest member of the fund, with the power of voting directly behind Japan. If the United States is back or even withdraws from the box, the China’s influence will increase greatly. This would limit the extent to which the International Monetary Fund calls bad Chinese practices. We will also have a limited or non -existent impact on the policies of the International Monetary Fund and the countries spent by the fund. The International Monetary Fund will show a great respect for Beijing.

But reforms are needed. The global economy is constantly evolving as well as the International Monetary Fund.

The fund’s mission is to support total economic stability through financial stability, financial stability, and external policies. Other areas – structural repairs, climate, and inequality – are also essential, but the box cannot do everything. Others should be postponed, focusing on its primary mandate and returning to the basics.

Global external imbalances are an ongoing problem and America, given its financial deficit, contributing to this. But others, like China and Germany, usually run huge surpluses in the field of account. The state -led heavy industrial policy model in China is increasing in a major surplus in manufacturing, suppressing consumption at home and sending shock waves abroad. The International Monetary Fund must do more to call global imbalances.

The heroic challenges remain on the debts of the country low. Often these countries remain deeply debtor due to excessive borrowing, including creditors in China and the private sector. Debt analyzes in the box should not leave countries soaked in high debts, expensive benefits and major payments.

While lending to the International Monetary Fund is of interest, monitoring member policies, including the United States, provides a public commodity. The International Monetary Fund function is to be tight. American economic policy is barely defective. We must expect and accept our commercial and financial policies – and we ask for sharp criticism of the policies of other members.

The International Monetary Fund is great for America. It has contributed to decades of unprecedented global prosperity.

It is not perfect and we should focus on the required repairs. But America is gaining through supporting the International Monetary Fund in achieving its vital contributions to the welfare of our country and the global economy.

Meg Lundsageer, Elizabeth Shortino and Mark Sobebeel are civilian employees in the former United States of the US Treasury who represented the United States on the Board of Directors of the International Monetary Fund.