The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Confessions of an economic hitman
Sam
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Is a book- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
Has anyone read this? I have and I'd say I politically orient myself with most of the guys beliefs, but I think he's full of shit and made up everything about his career.
Has anyone read this? I have and I'd say I politically orient myself with most of the guys beliefs, but I think he's full of shit and made up everything about his career.
Sam on
0
Posts
Whether or not his paticular story is true, the things he describes[as decribed in the wiki] do happen, and do happen intentionaly.
I have not read the book.
Yeah, big surprise there.
I'd like to know who really believes the WB and IMF are out there to honestly help developing countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_and_Its_Discontents
My own feeling is that... hmm. On the whole, I am more "pro-state" than the libertarians who seem to be very populous around here... but in the case of third world debtor nations, I can see the strength of the argument that there's something immoral about the... way a government can wrongly represent it's people.
Let's say we have tinpot dictatorship in a country called Chimerica. The government needs a lot of expensive weapons in order to keep all those pro-democracy protestors down, so they borrow money from the WB, spend the money on weapons, and "development" goes nowhere. Then, at some point in the future, the Chimerican government is toppled and a genuine democratic government is elected. Why is that government required to honour the debts which "Chimerica" owes to the WB? Shouldn't the money loaned to an illegitimate government be treated as a loan to the people who make up that government, rather than the country, given that they don't represent that country in a fair and accountable way?
In a general sense I'm inclined to support at least the IDEA of the WB/IMF, though I am a bit concerned about the real world implications of first world countries hold that kind of economic power over third world countries. The flip side of that is of course that its inevitable that this kind of relationship would arise, and this way at least the third world countries more directly have access to funds for infrastructure development.
There's a couple issues here. First off, there has to at least theoretically be an actual purpose for a loan from the WB/IMF and some sort of oversight. That of course doesn't mean that funds weren't ever (or even regularly) misappropriated for a variety of reasons.
Second, the reason a loan is to a country, and not an administration/specific leader is because: (1)The only way anyone could get a loan of the size we're talking about is by offering the stability and economic resources of an entire country as collateral, and (2) There's no way to really determine when a government is "illegitimate". If we allowed a country to renege on a loan whenever they claim their leaders "hadn't represented them properly" then there'd be almost no chance of ever actually get loans repaid.
All true. Luckily Slovenia closed itself economically for a decade after going solo before joining the global market, so we already had a strong(ish) market in place when foreign competition hit, but most of the other countries in Eastern Europe weren't as lucky. When they opened up, believing the whole "Capitalism! It will set you free!" fairytale, all their businesses were bought up by foreign investors, which meant that all profits went abroad rather than be spent developing the region. Also, good luck trying to negotiate better working conditions when every company gives just as little shit about you as your current one.
And I don't see what is so hard to believe about it - the US has done a lot worse things than act like a loan shark to 3rd world countries. Why do people think that the US is some kind of unique angelic nation that is immune from doing all the terrible shit that every other country does, or would do if it had the chance?
The only trouble I have believing it is I don't see the angle in it for the IMF and World Bank. To actually make it into a leadership position in one of those, you have to be a major independent economic power for years going on decades, and those that aren't lifers will then move on to other high level economic positions. So where is their benefit in doing the US' dirty work for them and throwing away vast sums of money on loans they supposedly know are unpayable.
I'm sure there could be reasons, but it just smacks of being too conspiracy nut/shadow government-esque to be taken seriously. I'd be more inclined to believe that the loans were made in good faith and then the first world countries capitalized on the third world countries perceived weaknesses.
Because people are gullible.
Sadly enough, that's most likely. It's just hard as hell to find an actual reasoned critique that doesn't dive head first into tinfoil hat territory two paragraphs in.
Wait. Are you saying... the USA isn't perfect?
TERRORIST.
Like say, Paul Wolfowitz?
IRT: Italics.
Because when bargaining to forgive the debt you bargain the rights to untapped natural resource production, like oil, and diamonds, and nuclear fuel, and whatever the hell they have that you want to take. The loss of they money is little compared to the economic benefit of controlling the resources.
Show me one of those that goes over why the WB/IMF are asshats and I'll gladly fill in the holes in my understanding