Subsequent demands for changes in the organizations include the remarkable 2003 debate between Nobel Prize Joseph Stiglitz and IMF Kenneth Rogoff, with the latter expounding the following views:

"Slammed by antiglobalist protesters, developing-country politicians, and Nobel Prize–winning economists, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has become Global Scapegoat Number One. But IMF economists are not evil, nor are they invariably wrong. It's time to set the record straight and focus on more pressing economic debates, such as how best to promote global growth and financial stability.

However one apportions blame for the financial crises of the past two decades, misconceptions regarding the merits and drawbacks of capital-market liberalization abound."

The fact of the matter is, however, that blame was never apportioned, reforms never came true; protesters fell silent once the crisis was over, and the organizations repositioned themselves until the following failure – today's crash, the worst crisis since the 30s.

Let us then review what the providers of official development assistance were up to after having learned the lessons from such crises.

Since the innovative financial instruments (asset/mortgage-backed securities, hedge funds, etc.) are the source of the current collective disaster, we have chosen to discuss the active encouragement by the World Bank of capital markets opening to, and use of, such instruments.

The international organizations themselves recognize the fact that such financial instruments are complex and hard to value – or even to supervise "in part because financial markets have gotten extremely interconnected and sophisticated so that it is hard to know who is actually bearing the ultimate risk," and it will be "challenging to find workable, practical ways to correct entrenched incentives and structures – both in the marketplace and in regulatory and supervisory systems – that have led to a deep disruption of financial intermediation."

So far no one can even discern whether such instruments will ease or deepen the crisis, or whether some time, under a still undefined regulation and supervision framework, help the economies and peoples, or be instrumental to financial speculation.

However, right in the middle of the crisis, the World Bank – after having for a long decade promoted use of such financial products by virtually nonregulated non-bank financial institutions – has hosted a seminar in Eastern Europe to market such financial intermediation model among the region's nations, some of which are amongst the most hardly hit by the crisis and seekers of IMF's emergency loans.

First of all, let us just remind the reader the WB is a public international organization and a multilateral development bank financed with public monies from the taxpayers of both rich and poor countries. It has 10,000 staff members, and an administrative budget of around US$2,100 million a year. Its mission, under the institution's Articles of Agreement, involves facilitating the investment of capital for productive purposes, promote private foreign investment and finance for productive purposes and the long-range balanced growth of international trade, by encouraging international investment for the development of the productive resources of members and conduct its operations with due regard to the effect of international investment on business conditions in the territories of members.