I have thought about what is talked about in that book plus what has happened with Austerity in Europe during the post 08' Crisis period. It seemed like organizations tried to encourage economies to reform, but often the reasons seemed underhanded. Basically it seems like countries get loans (which is their fault) but the people loaning it out like the Troika, IMF, etc. realize they can't pay it back. Then people push back against colonization, or austerity, or whatever the program may be. As an example of this they may want to privatize a state enterprise, to a group of investors, but the situation appears to have been engineered to buy the state enterprise for a song. To a certain extent I can agree tat trying to force change on people in a situation that may not be ideal will lead to greater issues, like with Qadaffi in Libya. In some cases would it be better to live under a socialist system and just leave them alone? Granted the situation in Libya was an invasion whereas in Europe it was not an invasion, but super organizations intervening in a failing process that people were ok with and maybe should suffer from or experiment and find better social organizations. Another example was the IMF over lending to Zaire. Who is more in the wrong, the super organizations (which are state funded) or the countries that are too bond headed to realize some reform is needed?