IMF, World Bank Why are these called "Evil"?

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

Typical myopic academic attitude... insult everyone then proceed to write a dissertation when a sentance will suffice. Further validates my experience with academics, (I've known a whole LOT of em through my 6 years in college and 13 years in the business world) but only a handful of the lot were worth a damn.

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.

[DraconisRex]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by DraconisRex: 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. Which HIV/AIDS fiasco? The one where men are rabing babies because some rumor says that sex with unsullied virgins will cure the curse? Or the one where the WHO feels morally justified lying about HIV/AIDS figures because AIDS gets more donations to treat illness than does say..dysentary, cholera or a host of other diseases that while bad, just can't be used to scare money out of people? There is no hostility in my writing Im just not good at word play, I use sarcasm a bit too freely too...but I hope I got my messages accross

[/QUOTE]Yes. Both. I'm an AIDS dissident. Considering the orothodoxy wishes to jail "my kind" under thier polite form of scientific tyranny, a little sarcasm is a lark. Use it all the time. Besides, this isn't the polite-cooperative part of the board. This is more the polite but contentious part of the board. Sarcasm is perfectly appropriate. Whereas flaming isn't. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Not that you flamed.

[DraconisRex]

""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 ]

[True_Moose]

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.

[John D Harris]

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 ]

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

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".

[norompanlasolas]

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 ]

[Thoran]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: 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".

[img]smile.gif[/img] I've spent time in darn near all the major US cities, it's the only one where at 3:30 am I got into a full blown congestion fueled traffic jam on the beltway.

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 ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by John D Harris: 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?

I'd have to say that if a country has to match the USA in economics before it's considered a "good economy" then very few will pass muster. Higher population doesn't mean more potential either.

Originally posted by norompanlasolas: 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.

Umm you say they are making a return on their profit...Timber says they aren't about return on an investment....which one of you is correct? Now you both have me confused.

[ 09-27-2002, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]