|
<font color="#cc3399">Ok Im guilty of not doing any research here.. any one care to enlighten me? or to pontificate, obfuscate, or elucidate?
Just trying to make sense out of why these silly protestors are so intent on harassing innocent people just trying to get to work in the morning who have nothing to do with the IMF or World Bank....their aim is to "Shut this City Down" speaking of Washington DC today.</font> |
<font color = lightgreen>Most of the time protesters have nothing better to do, regardless of what side of the issue they pursue. They must not have a job since they are not at one. Also, having a protest is a great way to get attention for you cause, whether your cause makes sense or not.
I'm not saying that we should not protest if the need arises, nor am I saying that we should not have the right to protest. It's just that most protesters are like little children throwing a tantrum just to get some attention. Like you said, if they can't get their way they will "shut this city down". [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] </font> |
IMF and World Bank meetings are high profile events where protester can get International Exposure for their cause... that's guaranteed to insure the maximum number of loons per square foot.
Those that are actually protesting IMF or World Bank policy usually are protesting the manipulation and exploitation of the third world by the first world (who are in control of the IMF and WB) through the auspices of said institutions. |
<font color="#cc3399">Granted there are a fair number of wacko's out there today, but I keep hearing sound bites on TV saying that the IMF and World Bank are satans own kin.....All I know is that the IMF and World bank are responsible for loaning money to people....people who if they accept the loan...agree to make payments and tto repay the money. There is an interest fee attached, but that is to be expected...I mean hey, they could just as easily invest that money somewhere else and get a return.
Does the IMF and World bank go out and force people to take their moeny? Is it unreasonable for them to expect their loan to be repaid? I just dont get where the "Evil" part comes from...It sounds like the middle ages where the christians hated the jews (who were money lenders) so they subjected them to the inquisition and all kinds of opression and hate.....very confusing to me. </font> |
these protesters are a motley bunch.they consist of paid union thugs(the rent-a-mob in the us),old hippies,neo-hippies,communists,and anarchists.and then you have the people who just have nothing better to do.
now as for why they hate the imf and wb?because they do not want the third world to improve. |
<font color="#cc3399">Well that may be..but somehow I have a feeling that there has to be more to their anti-IMF stance than that.....I hope they are basing all this crap and bother over more than that...</font>
|
People should be able to come to the nations capital to express their views. That is a constitutional right that must be respected. It should be possible, however, to conduct days of events and planning peacefully- without threats of shutting the city down blah, blah.
The rights of voicing your views in an orderly fassion in the nation's capital should go hand in hand. Lately it seems like everyone threatens the city in this manner when staging a protest about something. Little do the protesters realize is that most of the people who work in the city are federal workers- they will get paid anyway :D |
Quote:
they have to block our streets, harrass innocent worker types and basicly be a nuisance...The first ammendment says you can protest and speak freely...it does NOT give you the right to force people to listen or even pay attention! :( </font> |
Agreed.
Last I heard, anything really important go's on in Brusell's anyway. ;) |
The way I see it, protesting about anything invoulving Washington DC is impossible to take any notice unless you break down the white house gates and storm the front lawn... I saw a woman there once, with frizzy hair, who was complaining that Nuclear testing ruined here once fine and straight hair, and turned it into a grizzley bride-of-frainkenstien look...
|
I love the posts on this forum by people who don't know what they're talking about. Not so much because I like reading drivel, but because it lets me keep a tab on the man-on-the-street opinion.
To spell it out: 1. IMF and WB were created (In an historic summit in Brenton Woods, NH) to loan money to countries in trouble. Why? Cause at that time, the same time that the General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trade (GATT) that later became the WTO was being designed, the world was really realizing that economic booms and busts in other countries affect every country - We are all inter-dependent to some degree economically. The World Bank is, technically, the IBRD (Intn'l Band for ? and Development, I think). 2. But, IMF and WB, to put it simply, require that a country have good economic policy so they can be assured the loan will get paid back. 3. Since IMF and WB are in Washington and are run by the First World (which are the basically only countries to contribute money to the funds), the requirement to "be good" economically translates to "do what we say and look like us." 4. Countries, while willing to take a loan and do a lot to guarantee that loan, generally like to have some control of their own economic policy - go figure ;) . The feel squished by the first-world demands. Plus, it's not easy for them to always look like us - their situation is different. As a quick example, they can't do a lot in the way of workers rights because their workers suffer at the hands of OUR industries who went there for dirt-cheap labor (which is an economic phenomenon that I'm not objecting to). I know that's not an economic example, which I should use in this discussion, since most WB/IMF requirements involve fiscal policy. Also, an open election (to get the politician we want in office) is often called for - not exactly part of the IMF/WB purview, but the loan won't issue until the administrations of the first world countries (basically, the US, the biggest contributor to the fund) agree to it. Sometimes we ask these countries to do things we can't even do - like use a monetary standard. USA went from gold standard to silver standard, and then that was removed. In truth, your USA dollar today is not backed by any stash of gold in Ft. Knox, and is in fact only worth what people around the world believe it's worth. Nevertheless, we required Argentina to use a Dollar standard (i.e. they could not print more money than they had dollars in the bank) when we bailed them out. Silly. It made the Argentine peso strong for a long time (when I was there it was worth 98 cents) but we've seen it come crashing this last year. 5. Finally, and especially in 2002, who the F**K is the USA to be telling someone how to run an election or police corporate behavior. HTH with a general understanding of what others view as the problems. I won't sign off as agreeing with all of this, so don't flame me for presenting what I understand to be the devil's advocate point of view. :D |
I apologise in advance for my bad english, it would be alot easier to respond to the question in Swedish.
First of all, banks are more or less chaotic neutral ;) The reason why the world bank is chaotic evil is because it capitalizes on poor countrues poverty. In the beginning there was colonist that forced a foul exploiting market on the small countries in the south, then when their economy crashed because of exploatation by large companies like Texaco, the would have to borrow money, they did this because they had no other choise. The world bank today is still getting intrest(probably the wrong word, sry) back from these countries,all of these countries have payd back on the loan 3-4 times, they can never afford to pay back all of the money at once, and the debts are just rising all the times. Its like stealing your car, and then loan u money for a bad car, that have to be repaired all the time, for this you have to loan even more money from me, and my intrest rate is skyhigh, so your trapped in a loann trap for the rest of your life. and all along it I who stole the car from u in the first place. |
Part of it is the inevitible reaction of people to the continuing problem of the United States and other first world countries acting in a colonial manner.
Part of it is the buried racism that first world countries have toward the people of third world countries. Part of it is just as Enron executives exploited investors, the first world has, by and large, exploited the third world. Disclaimer: All of these are more complicated than the synoptic over-view I presented. The large part is the 1st world put tons of pressure on 3rd world countries to do things like deliever 1st world medical services, adopt 1st world farming practices, etc., etc. Unfortunatly, these practices were NOT economically viable in these countries. Then, these countries, after running up all this debt on first world medical equipment, first world farming equipment, etc. were slapped across the back of the hand. Now, they are forced to close the hospitals. Deny social services. Abandon the land that was ruined by first world (situationally defective) farming practices, etc. So, yeah, they're mad. So, yeah, some idiots from first world countries over-do-it and want to "shut cities" down. What else is new? In the end, you have two diametrically opposed lunatic factions. The World Bank and the Protesters. But one side is accorded respectibility and has all the power. The other side has only one weapon: emotion. What is dangerous is when those factions end up on the same side. Then we have the HIV/AIDS fiasco. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
No intent at insult, Magik. These are crazily complex issues that I've studied a lot, so my point was that sometimes the academia background I come at these issues from, plus the fact I've worked on WTO issues in-depth a lot, make me out-of-touch with the point of view taken by most folks.
The problem with the lender setting the terms is an "evil" of sorts here. We're not talking about a bank saying "these are the terms or you get no loan." We're talking about an International organization that is supposed to be run by all countries according to a TREATY. So, the WB and IMF should not be able to dictate these things carte blanche, as they've got a set of rules to work by that most banks don't. This leads me to discussing your notion that you want a reasonable return on your investment. Well, firstly these funds were created moreso to bail out countries in trouble than to make a buck, making their obsession with getting the money back a bit disingenuine from the original intended purpose. Moreover, one can run an economy effectively (thus guaranteeing the loan) without running it like the U.S. does. China is a fine example, because they are on the opposite end of the spectrum (socialist). However, even among first world nations there are some rather striking differences. Lester Thurow, a Harvard economist, wrote a book about this in the early 1990s where he broke the first world down into 3 basic economic zones based on how they run their economic policies. The zones were North America, EU, and Pacific Rim. In Pacific Rim countries, he found more "communistic" market practices (a term which would have been a paradox a generation ago), meaning he found more instances of the fiscal policy of the government being intertwined with businesses. The Japanese government for instance will make direct loans to companies - a true rarity in the US, where we generally don't like to see the government give money to industries (though the tax code is certainly a way to do this through the back door). Thus, guaranteeing return on a loan does not mean they should necessarily change their policies to be like us. As for this being an international agency and the U.S. being unable to dictate the terms of the loans, I agree with you in principle but that is not the reality. The U.S. primarily has the reins of these agencies (and it does, I'll note again, put in the most $$$). Your economics professor was right. My point was why should we require another country to undertake a practice we have evolved past? The one thing you will see over and over again that everyone agrees on is that the best summation of the angst over these agencies is their Parental attitude. |
qb][/QUOTE]<font color="#cc3399">Your english is fine...your logic...in my opinion [img]smile.gif[/img] is flawed. You say they have no choice...but they do have a choice...they can say No. you always have choices....they choose to say yes...the thing about choice is....people want to make them...but not accept the consequences of those choices. To quote: "The choices you make, dictate the life you lead, to thine ownself be true.". Anyway thanks for trying to help me understand the other side [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QB][/QUOTE]
I don't think it's that easy to say no. A country in trouble has no choice but to take an IMF loan. Chief among the reasons why is that first world businesses don't want to deal with them if they don't. And, first world money flow is a must. The reason why the first world companies stay out is that, as you may well be aware, when the economy tanks or a war (economic instability undoubtedly can beget war) breaks out, not only may any capital (equipment, buildings, and $$) in the country get stolen or vandalized, but the regime in control of the country may nationalize the capital (i.e. say "now it belongs to the country") or prevent it from being removed from the country. A loan relationship with the first world keeps their ties to the first world open and really helps prevent this from happening. |
coming from argentina, i have to say it is a perfect example of a country badly managed, but also where the imf and world bank policies have been completely wrong. they have basically sunk down the country instead of promoting recovery.
right now, argentina is in "default" which means it is not paying its creditors and gets no more credit. so it is being sanctioned and penalized by the imf. but guess what? it received a credit from the imf to pay for the interests of a credit owed to... you got it! the imf!!! it sounds kafkian but it is so. the penalty for not taking said credit would be that it would be unable to pay for the other credit to the imf, and becoming in default with it, thus getting more sanctions. it is a vicious circle from the no less vicious imf officials. defending the imf is pretty darn well impossible. you have to be pretty cynical to do it (it is not defended by... well, anyone that is not working there). they are basically the iron glove of capitalism and it is ruled by the interests of their own greed. and they are not even doing a good job. their "recepies" for improving 3º world economies have failed miserably (admitted by even them) and their ineptitude is legendary. id add more and put examples but there are so many of them id probably fill 3 pages with writing. [ 09-26-2002, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: norompanlasolas ] |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MagiK:
[QB][QUOTE]Originally posted by DraconisRex: [qb]Part of it is the inevitible reaction of people to the continuing problem of the United States and other first world countries acting in a colonial manner. Part of it is the buried racism that first world countries have toward the people of third world countries. Part of it is just as Enron executives exploited investors, the first world has, by and large, exploited the third world. Disclaimer: All of these are more complicated than the synoptic over-view I presented. <font color="#cc3399">Ummm Lets see, the USA hasn't made any colonies anywhere recently...the Oil resources in the middle east were all Nationalized by those nations (they took them back from the US oil companies that paid for the right to exploit them) and formed OPEC and now sell the oil at their pleasure to companies like Texaco etc. I think that part is actually pretty simple. Why do people complain about companies getting rich reselling the oil the arabs sell to them but no one bitches at the Princes, Sultans, Ayatolahs etc who reap untold billions and yet still allow their people to suffer through poverty?....aside fromt the fact that you can be shot for protesting their rule that is ..</font> No. Not making colonies. Acting in a colonial manner. That is - you do what we say because we're superior and you're inferior. Look at AIDS: Mbeki, a very well educated and very well spoken man, says: "You people are ignoring your best scientists and destroying their careers when they don't agree with your HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Your best scientists, even those that believe HIV=AIDS, proved conclusively that AZT doesn't prolong life, but shortens it. What happened to the ideals of science?" Mbeki is treated like an idiot and the colonial-attitude permeating from the west attempts to make him look like he just came in from the jungle and washed off the war paint. The attitude is "What is this Jungle Bunny doing questioning our drugs and our science." Here's some reading, specifically the last page letter of Mbeki's response to the "Durban Declaration." I hope you can stand the facts: "Some elements of this orchestrated campaign of condemnation worry me very deeply. It is suggested, for instance, that there are some scientists who are 'dangerous and discredited' with whom nobody, including ourselves, should communicate or interact. In an earlier period in human history, these would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake! Not long ago, in our own country, people were killed, tortured, imprisoned and prohibited from being quoted in private and in public because the established authority believed that their views were dangerous and discredited. We are now being asked to do precisely the same thing that the racist apartheid tyranny we opposed did, because, it is said, there exists a scientific view that is supported by the majority, against which dissent is prohibited. The scientists we are supposed to put into scientific quarantine include Nobel Prize Winners, Members of Academies of Science and Emeritus Professors of various disciplines of medicine! Scientists, in the name of science, are demanding that we should cooperate with them to freeze scientific discourse on HIV-AIDS at the specific point this discourse had reached in the West in 1984. People who otherwise would fight very hard to defend the critically important rights of freedom of thought and speech occupy, with regard to the HIV-AIDS issue, the frontline in the campaign of intellectual intimidation and terrorism which argues that the only freedom we have is to agree with what they decree to be established scientific truths. Some agitate for these extraordinary propositions with a religious fervour born by a degree of fanaticism, which is truly frightening. The day may not be far off when we will, once again, see books burnt and their authors immolated by fire by those who believe that they have a duty to conduct a holy crusade against the infidels. It is most strange that all of us seem ready to serve the cause of the fanatics by deciding to stand and wait. It may be that these comments are extravagant. If they are, it is because in the very recent past, we had to fix our own eyes on the very face of tyranny. I am greatly encouraged that all of us, as Africans, can count on your unwavering support in the common fight to save our continent and its peoples from death from AIDS. Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurance of my response. THABO MBEKI " Mbeki didn't make this up. This isn't a crackpot idea. Mbeki read scientific journals and papers that have shredded the HIV=AIDs hypothesis. Mbeki has consulted with Nobel Laureates in this area. Even the Pope of AIDS (Robert Gallo) and the Primiere of AIDS (MOntingier) agree that HIV cannot cause AIDS and is, at best, a cofactor - and they're the ones who found the virus! No my friend, colonialism ,in word and attitude, is well alive in the first world. |
Quote:
again... to answer the origonal question... "Those that are actually protesting IMF or World Bank policy usually are protesting the manipulation and exploitation of the third world by the first world (who are in control of the IMF and WB) through the auspices of said institutions." And that's exactly what they're protesting... in their opinions the IMF & WB equal the thumb of the first world over the third world. |
Quote:
|
""Those that are actually protesting IMF or World Bank policy usually are protesting the manipulation and exploitation of the third world by the first world (who are in control of the IMF and WB) through the auspices of said institutions."
And that's exactly what they're protesting... in their opinions the IMF & WB equal the thumb of the first world over the third world." Thoran, so well stated. But then, I've found that unless you footnote it, the psuedo-intellectuals that couldn't balance a checkbook or pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel, won't listen to you and will distort every thing you write/say. Personally, I believe they need the sledgehammer of pedandic pedogogy profusely pounded upon their pointy heads. [ 09-26-2002, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ] |
I think that there are certainly some protests that get out of hand and get violent, just look at the battle of Seattle. However, we just had a major international conference here in Calgary, some big oil group, like OPEC except worldwide. Major precautions were taken, and there was some tension, definitely, even at my school, which is downtown. However, the police said they would crack down hard on violence, but most protests were fine. In fact, one instance (on the first day there was a parade), two cops gave a protestor a lift cuz he was late. Some of the more violent protestors, wanted, on separate occasions, to trash a MacDonald's, and to rush a fence at the airport guarded by police. However, on both these occasions, fellow protestors stopped them.
If you can get by my inane blabber, what I mean is that there are some violent protestors, who are actually drowning out the important messages that the actual legitimate protestors have. |
MagiK,
Basicly it's folks that think the "Haves" are evil because they have, and the "Have Nots" are the most perfect wonderful people in the world because they have not. Jealousy on the part of the "Have Nots", guilt on the part of the "Haves" that participate. ie: why should we have all these advantages, when others don't? (answer because somebody, sometime, somewhere worked for it and became one of the "Haves", and NO they'd didn't ALL do it on the back of the "Have Nots".) Same mind set as the "Tax the rich" crowd, to them I say if you think you should be paying more taxes, then put your money where "Your" mouth is and you pay more taxes, as for me and my family we pay the taxes that we owe and work to make them lower for everybody, If you don't like paying lower taxes then you can allways throw in what ever extra you think you should. Edit: I forgot you also have the IMF, WTO are trying to take over the world crowd, to them I say becareful the "Black Helocopters" are watching you and yes they know where your are. Somebody mentioned China as an example of a good economy, a country that has 4-5 times the population, 4-5 times the consumers, 4-5 times the pontental(sp?) of the USA. what is the econimic output of China 1/3-1/2 of the USA? Which one is more efficient? [ 09-26-2002, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ] |
I could care less about the World bank. All I have to say is that if some unwashed,loud mouth protestor attempts to slow your progress through the maze that is Washington D.C. bring your car up to ramming speed and run them down!! D.C. is hard enough to get around with out tourists "Shutting the city down".
|
i think we got a little off topic here. we are not talking if it is ok to run over protestors with you car (you could open another thread called "i want to run over random people with my car, is it cool?"). we are not talking about jealousy (are we 4º graders???). we are talking if the imf and the world bank are doing the job they were created for or have degenerated into useless bureocratic organisms that serve absolutely no purpose AT ALL except do even more bad to some countries economies.
why is it that i read no arguments about this, and only posts pretty infantile or denigrating other peoples opinion? (as the scholars example). if we are going to resort to name calling, this is a pretty useless debate. or maybe it is resorted to name calling and infantilization because you dont have valid arguments. anyways, id like to repost this as a clear example of the imf's loanshark attitude. right now, argentina is in "default" which means it is not paying its creditors and gets no more credit. so it is being sanctioned and penalized by the imf. but guess what? it did receive a credit from the imf to pay for the interests of a credit owed to... you got it! the imf!!! it sounds kafkian but it is so. the penalty for not taking said credit would be that argentina would be unable to pay for the other credit to the imf, and becoming in default with it, thus getting more sanctions. it is a vicious circle from the no less vicious imf officials. edit: i will post more examples later in the day. [ 09-27-2002, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: norompanlasolas ] |
Quote:
LA traffic is often quoted as the worst, but that time of night it's smooth sailing. Norompanlasolas you're post is off-topic too [img]smile.gif[/img] . The origonal question regarded why protestors protest at IMF/WB meetings. However, you're obviously not an impartial party and you probably have more insight into the long running problems in Argentina (a very thorny issue) so spill your guts. Right now Argentina and the IMF are negotiating... http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reu...20926_648.html One thing that struck me about this article is that Argentina is the persuer in these negotiations. For you or me... if we went to a bank and they attempted to attach all sorts of rules and limits to a loan... we'd go elsewhere. However, it appears that Argentina has nowhere else to go. I can also understand that if you have nowhere else to go, you're open to abuse by the lender... which is why there are limits on interest rates that Americans can be charged by banks. It would appear that both parties are doing what they should be doing, the IMF is attempting to direct change in Argentina to create a stable currency and economy (although there appears to be some debate regarding HOW they're doing it [img]smile.gif[/img] ), and Argentina is fighting to obtain the best terms for itself in negotiations for a short term remidy to her immediate problems. So as far as "useless" I would say that Argentina's own behavior leads one to believe that she doesn't see the IMF as "useless". Many of the arguments I'm reading against the IMF are weak (at best)... take this quote for instance. "Our goal is to debunk the myth that these taxpayer funded institutions alleviate poverty and "develop" poor countries….The IMF and the World Bank have turned countries in the global South into the "colonies" of multinational corporations that want access to cheap labor and natural resources. Corporate profits are soaring to new heights, but so is income inequality. Where's the trickle-down? - Juliette Beck, Global Exchange, San Francisco, CA." If the goal of the IMF is to provide an atmosphere in these countries that make them attractive to foreign investment... this quote would seem to be a backhanded way of saying that the IMF has been successful. Corporations are drawn to LCC's often for labor savings, only to find that wages due to competition have increased in that country so quickly that they're no longer an LCC (this effect has cascaded through the pacific rim over the last decade or two). If large corporations are investing in labor intensive facilities in a country, the cost of labor in that country WILL increase... basic economics. That entire quote appears to have a cloaked labor (protectionist) agenda. I'd be very interested to hear more from you regarding the specifics of Argentina and their dealings with the IMF. [ 09-27-2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ] |
Quote:
|
Quote:
[ 09-27-2002, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ] |
Magik, I would say that, AFAIK, the IMF/WB was not *designed* to make money. But, I would say that becasue, as I pointed out in my other post, the IMF/WB in this day and age sees its job as ensuring returns on its loan, it ends up making money just like any ol' bank. In short, I think we're both right.
|
Quote:
As for other economies not passing muster, that's their problem. I'm a simple country boy, but if I want to learn how to do anything the best I can. I try to find someone who is the best at it, and learn from them. I don't want to be second best, I strive to be the best at all I do. Now if someone else wants to be second best that's their problem to deal with, personnaly I'm happy when my competition is content to be #2. :D [ 09-28-2002, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved