From my understanding of history, the battle in the 50s and 60s was over Keynesian vs monetarist economics. Keynesian plays with the supply/demand cycles; monetarists play with the money supply. The monetarists eventually won.
The Chicago boys are more tied to neoliberal economics, which is not necessarily monetarist thinking. Neoliberals believe that a proper economy should have as little government involvement as possible. The IMF is rife with neoliberals.
The IMF has a near monopoly on international loans to pull countries out of financial distress. So affected countries have little choice but to accept the conditions imposed by the IMF. This means a sell-off of state enterprises, reduction in social programs, breaking of unions, and open borders for international [western] products to be sold in the country.
When the IMF moves in, there are powerful interests that know how to profit from an IMF handout. Wealthy people (inside and outside the IMF country) get a little wealthier. The average citizen holds the IMF debt.
I was living in Czechoslovakia in the early 90s. Profitable state enterprises were sold cheaply to political lackeys or organized crime. The IMF believes that these immoral sales are better than these companies remaining in state hands.
I have gained my position primarily from two popular books. Here are my reviews:
https://medium.com/politically-speaking/book-review-the-shock-doctrine-524e171b782b
My other readings on the IMF support these two works, but I believe the IMF has gone to a higher level: the IMF has become a rogue bureaucracy. It really has no overseers anymore. Elected politicians cannot bring it in; appointed politicans at the UN cannot bring it in.
I'm not seeing any signs the IMF has learned from its mistakes. When it moves back into Russia and Ukraine, we will see similar policies that were implemented in the early 90s--and eventually contributed to this civil war.
We really need a new way of governance.
