The IMF's stated purpose is to support world macroeconomic stability. It does not purport to have profit as its purpose, so the whole "is capitalism good" argument is irrelevant.
Whether the Dominican government and people are to blame is also irrelevant (albeit true, at least for the 48% that voted for Hippo). The topic is really whether the IMF achieves its stated purpose, or whether its claims of being beneficial to the developing world are a fraudulant smoke screen.
The evidence points to the fact that the IMF does not really help developing countries (whether it be due to those countries own irresponsibility or otherwise). As shown in the articles, the IMF tends to lead these countries down a spiral of more loans, more debt, more economic pressure and more defaults.
So, the IMF can best be described as existing to bail out the banks from the G7 countries that irresponsibly lent money to non-creditworthy governments in the first place (and at exhorbitant terms, I might add). It's the farthest thing from pure capitalism, because the existance of the IMF allows for huge loans that would never otherwise exist based on creditworthiness.
Because of the interlocking directorates between the IMF/World Bank and the lending banks/financeers, this would appear to be an elaborate fraud. Now, some may argue that, in a pure capitalist or libertarian system, the IMF has the right to be an elaborate fraud, and nobody can criticize them as long as government sponsored greed is their motive. Well, okay, maybe one person alive would argue this.
To restate, the tragedy of this elaborate fraud is that it is the poor and what's left of the middle class (the latter who did most certainly NOT vote for Hippo) that will be required to pay back the loans as a result of the IMF ordered "austerity" to come (sorry for the violin strings, Tony). You see, the IMF is the "enforcer" for Citibank, CreditSuisse, JPMorgan, etc. The IMF's target for enforcement are the poor and middle class. The Dominican political class, who stole the money in the first place, will come out unscathed.
All in all, it's an unhealthy conspiracy of exploitation of the poor and destruction of the middle class. And no developing country has a chance to get ahead without a middle class. So the IMF's impact is opposite to its stated purpose! Aren't we seeing this happen in the DR right now?
I'm the pure capitalist and libertarian here, not Tony! I believe that a strong Latin America led by a healthy middle class would create fabulous markets for American and European goods and services and enhance world trade. But the fraudulant exploitation perpetrated by the IMF/World Bank ensures that this will never happen.
I'm the pure capitalist and libertarian here, not Tony! I believe that the DR government should be allowed to default on its loans to Citibank, BancoSantander, CreditSuisse, etc., without threats or gunboats coming from the US. Sorry, Tony, that's the way it would work were the unadulterated free market to apply. But it doesn't work that way now because of the giant, government-created, free-market anamoly known as the IMF.
I believe that the executives and stockholders of these institutions should suffer losses so that they will stop loaning money irresponsibly to corrupt governments. I believe that corrupt, non-creditworthy governments should not be able to buy their own reelections with IMF money.
Governments that are financially irresponsible should not have access to capital. They would be forced to live within their means and develop a local tax base were it not for the IMF and World Bank. Govenments that cause defaults would lose access to foreign capital, creating an automatic internal (rather than IMF-ordered) austerity that would cost them reelection (rather than being able to buy reelection with IMF money). The political class that creates these disasters in the first place would be the ones to pay. What's more capitalistic than that?
As a final indictment of the IMF, the IMF is, as Mondongo has pointed out, lending the DR government an amount of money that is equal to the funds that it will require be reduced from the DR government payroll. In other words, it's smoke and mirrors. The loan has no real value! The DR government could simply reduce its payroll on its own and be in the same financial position without the loan - real loanshark kind of stuff.
If someone can defend the IMF/World Bank with more than trite little phrases, I would truly welcome the info. I'm only calling them as I see them. I really don't want to believe that they are as evil as they seem.