My sense is that the IMF does not have a proper modus operandi for the current conditions in the world. They misjudge rhetorically. They misjudge tactically. They misunderstand the dangers of financial panic, and the results are terrible.

In the early 1990s, when a lot of the developing world opened up to international capital flows... they ended up in very good long-term projects, but projects that weren't going to pay off for five or 10 or 20 years.

For many parts of the world, the chasm that has to be crossed to get from where they were, whether it's a dictatorship, economic collapse, financial crisis or all of the above, to the other side, that is a working market economy and a functioning democracy, is extraordinarily difficult and requires help.

I'm focusing on a world divided between rich and poor, and a world that doesn't seem to be able to manage the natural base of our lives: air, oceans, or biodiversity. It's a mistake to think that globalization is automatically beneficent and should run its due course-but also to think that it ought to be shut down.

The basic idea was that if a country would put its economy as an integrated piece of the world system, that it would benefit from that with economic growth. I concur with that basic view.

We were proposing, in a sense, that the rest of the world be made safe for American ideas, as they adopted intellectual property rights that gave patent protection to our very innovative economy.