Such was the extent and severity of the collapse that external intervention became necessary, despite being regarded by many as a new kind of colonialism. Given that they were being affected countries were between rich not only in their region but worldwide, and given that billions of dollars were at stake, any response to the crisis should be cooperative and international levels. In this case, intervention occurred through the International Monetary Fund. The IMF created a series of packets of “rescue” to bail out the most affected economies to prevent suspension of payments of these countries, bringing together these packages of reforms that were meant to stabilize the Asian currencies and banking systems and financial, as exemplified in the U.S. and Europe. In other words, the IMF support was conditional on a series of drastic economic reforms influenced by neoliberal economic principles called “structural adjustment package.Structural adjustment required of the crisis-hit countries ordered cut public spending and reduce fiscal deficit, let the insolvent banks and financial institutions fail and raise interest rates aggressively. The reasoning behind these measures was that these would be restored confidence in the countries’ fiscal solvency, penalize insolvent companies and protect the value of the coins. Above all, it was stipulated that IMF-supported capital should be managed rationally in the future, without supporters received funds embezzled favorite, to this end, there must be adequate government controls in place to monitor all financial activities, which should be independent private interest. Insolvent institutions were closed and insolvency itself had to be clearly defined. In short, Asia should be created exactly the same type of existing financial institutions in the United States as a condition of IMF support.In addition, financial systems should become “transparent”, that is, provide the kind of reliable financial information used in the West to make reasonable financial decisions. However, the biggest criticism against the IMF’s role in the crisis focused on its response to the crisis. As country after country fell into crisis, many local businesses and loans they had taken governments in U.S. dollars, became much more expensive for local currency in which they obtained their profits, being unable to pay its crors. The dynamics of the situation was very similar to that of the debt crisis in Latin America. The effects of structural adjustment program were mixed and their impact controversial. However, critics noted the contradictory nature of these policies, arguing that in a recession, the traditional Keynesian response was to increase public spending to support larger companies and lower interest rates.The reason was that, in this way will stimulate the economy, avoiding recession, with which governments could restore confidence while also warned the economic malaise. It argued that the same United States Government had followed expansionary policies, such as reducing interest rates, increased government spending and tax cuts when the U.S. entered recession in 2001. Although such reforms, in most cases, were long deprived, the countries most involved ended up undergoing a political and financial restructuring nearly complete. Suffered permanent currency devaluations, massive numbers of bankruptcies, collapses in all economic sectors, housing market slump, high unemployment and social unrest. For most of the countries involved, the intervention of the IMF had been roundly criticized.The role of the International Monetary Fund was so controversial during the crisis that many locals called the financial crisis the “IMF crisis.” In retrospect, many commentators criticize the IMF for pushing developing economies of Asia to the “fast track of capitalism”, ie towards financial sector liberalization (removal of restrictions on capital flows), maintenance of high domestic interest rates to attract portfolio investment and bank capital, and fix the national currency dollar to reassure foreign investors against currency risk. In other words, it was argued that the IMF itself was the cause of the crisis.