scenerio 1 : I believe there are most certainly instances where a certain government, economy, or country should be bailed out. If a particular bailout is projected to result in more overall good than harm it should always be considered. I'd like to explore the 2008 auto bailout of both Chrysler and GM. President Bush approved an allocation of 17.4 billion to the two companies, with 13.4 billion of it being sent immediately, after the two auto giants declared they were facing bankruptcy and the loss of over 1 million jobs. While many Americans did not support the bailouts, I believe that they did more good than bad due to the fact that it saved a million jobs. While bailouts do hurt the taxpayers, they can also keep money in the economy by saving jobs, as we saw in 2008.

I think that in certain cases it is ethical for the IMF to bail out countries that are prone to making poor fiscal decisions. If the country in question is vital to global trade, a bail out may be for the better good of society as a whole. Additionally, if citizens of a nation our suffering due to poor economic decisions by their government, a bail out could be viewed as a good humanitarian effort. While these bail outs are often needed, I don't think it's unethical for the IMF to have significant requirements attached to their loans, as it can encourage fiscal responsibility among the nations in need of a bail out.

scenerio 2: When there is an extreme economic crisis, any government, economy, or country in need should be bailed out. The IMF exists for this reason, therefore the resources should be available. With this being said, I do believe the IMF is the ideal organization to bail out a country when needed. One example was the crash of the airline industry after 9/11. According to the Legal Information Institute, the airline industry "received an 18.6 billion dollar bailout." (2020) However, this is something that could affect other governments and industries based on whether the debt is paid back or not.

However, it isn't necessarily smart that the IMF consistently bails out countries that repeatedly make bad economic and fiscal decisions. This is something that could drastically affect the reputation of the IMF. The following quote from the IMF discusses this ethical challenge, "Moral hazard remains a concern. Private institutions may be encouraged to lend and invest recklesslyor at least more than they shouldby the belief that the Fund will ensure that their debtors can repay them." (International Monetary Fund, 2002) I believe that other businesses, countries, or governments may find it unfair that the IMF , especially if they are in need.

With this being said, it is ethical for the IMF to have significant requirements attached to its loans, since some may be abusing it. This is a standard that the IMF should have based on the fact that there are some economies, governments, and countries that are fully abusing the loans that the IMF provides. This is an important lesson to be learned, specifically from the Greek debt crisis. I believe the IMF must implement restrictions that are appropriate to prevent this from happening. This is especially important because some may not ever pay off their loans.

Based on the two scenerios: The IMF is considering creating a digital currency. Assuming that we are in a world where there is a single digital currency, who would ideally global cryptocurrency? Would you trust the IMF to create one? Or would you prefer one created by a global bank such as JPMorgan Chase or one backed by a country?

• What are the ethical implications of cryptocurrency?