|
|
|
|
|
| | Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*Page 2 of 6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) |  RHeanna, had a good line for all you guy's...(-;
DO THE RESEARCH,KNOW THE REAL FACTS...(-;
Because just repeating what you heard on The FOX NEWS Show were skewed fact's,twisted to fit their program needs and NOT!!! ruffle bushco's feathers...(-;
I found a source of imformation that is rather shocking,but credable because it is the evidence for the 911 trial...(-;
As for the FBI???
It has been my experiance that for the most part they have a very diffecult time finding their own buttocks with both hands...
It took them how long to track the movements of ALQIADA,a CIA Black Opps Opperation???
As to the master Boogy Man,Oh Someone's Ben Fool'n YOU!!!
He Died of kidney failure in 1998...*J*
The Mad Dash ( Patriot Act ) was written in 1982 by George H.W. Bush...*J*
If you were resident's of New Your City,you would remember the anti terror drill's,that preceeded the 911 event...*J*
If you had lived accross the street from The World Trade Center,you could attest to the fact that the Twin Towers were imploaded...*J*
But in reality you know nothing,except what you see and hear on your FOX NEWS Program...
So like vancovermike,you post only to see your point of view in print...
Is that turd sandwich starting to taste like a chocolate eclair??? if so that's because you have been oppeating on bush pucky, for a long,long, long time now...   | |
|
| |
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/5/2005 9:56:51 AM |
No one ever said that dissent was a crime.
No, in Bush's world dissent is allowed.. Provided that your blocks away from the Pres and any reporters, in a steel cage and surrounded by thousands of armed security personnel.
But wear the wrong t-shirt to a Bush rally....
why would 9/11 have been avoided without Bush in office?
Perhaps a different president would have paid attention to the Presidential Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in The US"
Perhaps a different president would have moved quicker on Richard Clarke's urgings to investigate terrorism rather than waiting almost a year to even convene a group to talk about the problem.
Perhaps a different president would have paid attention to the warnings from other countries that their intelligence had picked up warnings of a terrorist strike on or around September 11th.
Perhaps a different president wouldn't have spent so much time on vacation.
Perhaps a different president wouldn't have spent so much time looking stunned and reading My Pet Goat after the first plane hit.
I could go on, but what's the use...
Remember the embassy bombings, and the first attack on the WTC?
Clinton retaliated for the embassy bombings. These were some of the events that led him to believe Al Qaeda was the biggest threat facing the US...
As for the first WTC attack, what happened to the perpetrators? Oh yeah, Clinton *caught* them - and foiled a second bomb plot in the process.
Where's Bin Laden at these days?... | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/5/2005 10:16:15 AM | | 9/11 happened with Bush in office because he let it..As far as still bit*hing about bush*t boy in office and the repubicans taking over politics in the U.S. I have a right to bit*h I was born in this country and I pay taxes in this country more so than the rich ceo's whom are actually bush*ts butt buddies..You say don't like it ...Leave.. You would all really like that makes your life alittle easier.. Well 59 million voted for bush*t you say...What about that? Yep that's alot of people of course there's over 200 million living in the U.S. So were not all dumb asses...You might have politics sewed up for now and you might have 59 million people that supposely voted for him but I doubt that figure is correct maybe 49 million dead people in the graveyards across America and ten million dumb asses.. That's more like it but even then what about the other 161 million Americans that did not vote for bushy boy? | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/5/2005 11:49:48 AM | By the way, does anyone remember how the Republicans were b*tching about clinton when he was in office. Man, now that was whiney! They didn't even have anything political to be whiney about.
All they could do was make up conspiracy stories about vince foster and complain about the president getting a blow job.
Fox TV was on b*tchmode all day trying to hold on to anything they could all because of a blow job.
Then when bush came in...they went into reverse mode.
By the way, I'm no clinton fan, I think he was the best republican president in a long time. | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/5/2005 11:50:54 AM | “The most important thing is for us to find Bin Laden. It is our nations number one priority, and we will not rest until we find him.”
George "Creepy" Bush, September 13, 2001
“I don’t know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority”
George "Creepy" Bush, March 13, 2002
What's that all about? Bush is no more concerned about catching Bin Laden, as he is to "fixing" social security. Wake up people! He's not even American.
He serves the World Bank, WTO, IMF, and the creepy Rothschild's. Clinton also serves these sick **stards.
What about the dollar? Bush doesn't care it is goin' down - in fact he wants another 413 billion for "defense." What about the exporting of jobs overseas? God, doesn't anyone think anymore?!
FACT: a private bank issues money. Paper against taxpayer debt. The Federal Reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express.
FACT: Bilderberg meetings decide which war we will fight next and which US president will win.
FACT: The Patriot Act was drafted well before 9/11 - point: pre-meditation (agenda setting)
FACT: They have all the laws and bills they need now to remove every American of property, liberty and freedom. Even more so when they declare an "emergency."
FACT: National ID with RFID locators have already passed in the Intelligence Rreform Bill
FACT: Indefinite Detentions of Americans without charges or trial has already passed in the Intelligence Reform Bill. | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/5/2005 11:49:58 PM | The 911 event was practused some 35 times,in NYC prior to the real thing...*J*
On the morning of 9-11-01 the hyjacing event had at least 3 dry run's, before they executed the real thing...*J*
Why could 911 not happen without bush in office??? BECAUSE BUSH SIGNED THE ORDERS, TO COMMENCE WITH THE 911 EVENT...
DO THE RESEARCH!!! KNOW THE FACT'S
Go to suetheterrorist.com take a look at Stanley Hilton's case against Bushco,on behalf of the 911 families...*J*
You see,Stanley Hilton has to deal in proovable fact,because he will indite a sitting President...
This is no publicity stunt,they are suing for over $260,Billion in Damages and there are a whole host of other charges...*J*
Do the Research,know the real story
then you will find that your fingers should only be pointing at bushco, not at me or even that guy over there... | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 12:12:50 AM | George W. Bush is visiting a primary school and he visits one of
the classes. They are in the middle of a discussion related to words and
their meanings. The teacher asks the President if he would like to lead the
discussion of the word "tragedy."
So the illustrious leader asks the class for an example of a
tragedy.
One little boy stands up and offers: "If my best friend who lives
on a farm, is playing in the field and a runaway tractor comes along and
knocks him dead, that would be a tragedy."
"No," says President Bush, "that would be an accident."
A little girl raises her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50
children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a
tragedy."
"I'm afraid not," explains the exalted leader. "That's what we would
call a great loss."
The room goes silent. No other children volunteer. President Bush
searches the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of
a tragedy?"
Finally at the back of the room, little Johnny raises his hand. In a
quiet voice he says: "If Air Force One carrying you was struck by a missile
and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."
"Fantastic!" exclaims President Bush, "That's right. And can you
tell me why that would be a tragedy?"
"Well," says the boy, "because it sure as hell wouldn't be a great
loss and it probably wouldn't be an accident either." | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 12:37:38 AM | Hey Fixit, don't pick on the IMF - they actually do some good things, along with the World Bank. A lot of people don't like their policies, but sometimes they have no other option then playing the hardline - in Monetary Economics (both international and domestic) credibility, or lack thereof, is one of the most important exogenous factors. So sometimes they have not other option than to just stick to a policy, no matter how 'unfair' or western oriented it may seem. If you want to b*tch about something, take a look at how partisan the World Health Organization is - they have hundreds of unpublished studies hidden away because of American and British pressure stifling publication.
Um, yeah, other than that, I'd sooner trust a pedophilic priest to look after my kids than George Bush to end 'world terror' (not that I have any kids). | |
|
| |
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 3:24:16 AM |
don't pick on the IMF - they actually do some good things, along with the World Bank.
Oh my ****ing Gawd...
Might I suggest a read-through of Stiglitz's book "Globalization and its Discontents." Great book, and as former chief economist of the World Bank I'm fairly sure he knows what he's talking about.
I'll agree with you that the World Bank has done some good work over the last three or four decades. But their policy of kow-towing to the IMF seriously detracts from any of that.
As for the IMF - I think you can point to 70 to 80% of the world's current problems and attribute them in some way to the fiscal polices forced upon the developing world by the IMF. From the Asian Economic Crisis to Russia's introduction to capitalism after the Berlin Wall fell... Every thing the IMF has touched seems to have turned to sh*t.
The main problem I think is that too often over the last fifty years, rather than try to actually help developing countries, the interests of certain monied international institutions are put first. In a struggle between the two, the IMF seems to have always shown favortism towards the later...
Not to mention the constant attitude that the IMF beaurocrats have that they *always* know better than anyone else - even those people on the ground in the countries they are supposed to be helping.
Personally, I think the IMF deserves all the picking on that it gets and then some.. Especially since the disasters of the last five decades seem to have taught the organization *nothing*. | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 11:59:46 AM | I've read the book. Interesting read, but nothing new. Funny thing though, another well known economist by the name of Robert E. Lucas (monetary specialist, nobel prize winner, one of the first people to successfully align monetary theory and rational expectations, etc.) tends to believe that as a whole, the IMF and the World Bank are necessary and beneficial institutions. Now I'm not basing my beliefs just on Robert F. Lucas, just as I'm not going to take everything Stiglitz wrote as the word of god - I mean come on, the guy was a hard-line neo-classic proponent longer than the Chicago club was.
As for your beliefs about the IMF well they are fashioned around a short run outlook based rore on emotions rather than rationality. Lets look at an example:
Suppose a country is bankrupt (to take a basic example of a developing nation). What's the basic answer to resolving this? Simply eliminate economic inequality of the national budget constraint. Okay, how do we do this? Three possible ways:
1) We can reduce national investment
2) We can reduce government spending into future time periods, or conversely reduce national consumption instead.
3) We can ask lending countries to forgive a portion of the bankrupt countries debt.
Problems:
1) To get a developing country to reduce national investment may equalize the collective budget constraint thereby eliminating inequality on paper in the short run, but as they are a developing country, this is like shooting itself in the foot because its simply not viable to reduce national investment and still have future growth when you are already bankrupt.
2) How the hell do you impose a reduction in government spending? That is up to the party that is in power within that country at the time, and since they depend on votes to survive, they probably aren't going to reduce their spending. Similarily if this is a developing nation that is bankrupt, you can't very well impose a reduction in national consumption, as the people are most likely already at the level of subsistance anyway.
3) If the bankrupt country decides to call in the IMF to negotiate with lending coutries to provide "Aid Packages" (ie- debt forgiveness), well that decision still rests with the lending countries, and they usually wish to see some reason as to why they should forgive the debt. Now it rests on the IMF to negotiate the terms. The lending countries usually wish to see some form of domestic stabilization policy which seeks to reduce gov't spending or national consumption, but these options can be considered somewhat draconian, politically speaking, and this serves to make the gov't of the bankrupt country look bad. So they turn around and blame the IMF for 'enforcing' this policy. So then all the bleeding heart, emotionally charged, and intellectually misinformed laypersons and ignorant 'pundits' start complaining about the IMF, claiming that their policies suck and are geared towards helping
certain monied international institutions .
The problem is that economists tend to look towards the Long Run, with the hopes of stabilizing the economic state of the country and opening the credit markets to the countries again. Whereas, everyone else tends to only view the short run and what has been published in the wall street journal (or other papers written by people with an MBA and an idea that they know what they are talking about).
As for
Every thing the IMF has touched seems to have turned to sh*t. Well, it was sh*t before the IMF got involved, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to touch it in the first place. And even with their far-sighted policies, things can still remain sh*tty for the country if the ruling power in that country continues to run a government of waste and stupidity. You can't blame lending countries for bailing out and refusing to forgive debt if the developing country continues to be a bad risk. And in that case - is the IMF to blame? I think instead you should take a good long look at the governments of these developing countries and maybe start throwing blame their way.
And yes, the IMF generally does know much more than its detractors, because those people who actually understand how international monetary economics work, usually look at the IMF as a doing a very difficult job. | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 12:57:12 PM | Oh my! to call the IMF evil would be a travesty. According to BBC reporter, Greg Palast the IMF has "An internal IMF study reveals the price 'rescued' nations pay: dearer essentials, worse poverty and shorter lives," and that inside the Hilton, Professor Anthony Giddens told an earnest crowd of London School of Economics alumni that "...globalisation is a fact, and it is driven by the communications revolution."
(see the article here:http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/imf/imfcrimes.htm)
I think we are missing the point when we debate the merits of the IMF (which are not good: Globalization means no soviegnty) vs. who our "elected" leader serves. The IMF was set up to globalize the world - not to rescue nations from monetary troubles.
Try and read, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins then you'll have some perspective of what is being done to other nations. Essentailly a CIA economics expert who moved into oil rich or resource rich countries and got them hooked on certain infrastructure projects. They wouold say they would give them a loan, and pay later provided that a US company of their choosing got the contract. Later they would call in the loan. When the country couldn't pay they would demand cheap resourses for a undetermined amount of time, and "stealing" value from that company. Also see what Beckel has done with water in South American companies in the documentary flick, "The Corporation."
Globalisation is the goal my friend. | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 1:11:39 PM | Well I'm glad you read Stiglitz. That's positive at least. Unfortunately, I think you're living in a paper world.
In case you hadn't noticed, over the past thirty years or so the policies of the Washington Consensus pushed by the IMF have not worked. In fact, in pretty much every situation they have been applied they have worsened the situation. Its a crutch that you're pulling out that short-term pain equals long-term gain. Its an argument used by many supporters of the neo-liberal IMF approach to support their policies
Suppose a country is bankrupt (to take a basic example of a developing nation).
First I would want to look at *why* that country is going bankrupt. As in your response, the IMF tends to take a one-size fits all approach to their policies. What is good for Venezuala, for example, is also good for Sri Lanka. (Even to the point of cutting and pasting trade documents used for one country into the text of another...)
This approach ignores cultural, regional and economic factors completely. All developing countries are not the same, and the view on the ground is vastly different except for those intellectuals locked in the Ivory Tower of the IMF.
Simply eliminate economic inequality of the national budget constraint
Sure, but wouldn't it be better to eliminate the factors driving this economic inequality? Forcing a government to privatize their food industry, for example, does nothing to help the situation if the same government is already importing foodstuffs. The companies that move in to operate the industry will grow cash-crops and sell them on the foreign market - worsening the situation on the ground and forcing the country to import more foodstuffs to feed itself. This has been demonstrated in pretty much every developing nation these Structural Adjustment Programs have been launched in.
Of course, importing more foodstuffs means going further into debt - which means borrowing more money which means more assitance from the IMF.. Its a merry-go-round that developing nations can never move off of, and I fail to see the "long-term" benefit of it.. Especially when under the current World Trade regime, governments are being told increasingly to keep their hands off of foreign trade - which means less taxes and less revenues generated from the privitization of the agricultural industry..
A better approach might be to encourage subsidied government programs - like pretty much all Western Nations did during their growing periods. These programs would spark growth in the nations and after time would generate a strong middle and business class that might eventually be able to be privatized.
The down-side of this, however, would be less of a role for the International Monies - meaning less profit for them. And since this is the group that the IMF truly represents, this approach isn't even considered. | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 1:19:00 PM | Sounds like how the Corporate business world works as well, and yet all these champions of Capitalism complain and whine about globalisation. You can't have a competitive marketplace at home and then support Utilitarianism worldwide. Besides, you're missing the forest for the trees. These developing countries want globalisation, but they complain when they don't receive it the way they want it. They have this perceived notion that the world should give willingly to them without any return warranted. Then everyone gets up in arms when it seems as if those who are 'in-power' received a better deal. That's the concept of business negotiation. We don't live in economic utopia - it was tried, it failed mightily through greed.
Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate all the practices of these organizations and corporations. I for one think that Monsanto is the devil in corporate form. But to just stand on one side and declare the IMF is an unwholesome entity is just misguided - without the IMF all of Africa would look like Zimbabwe. Granted Africa still isn't looking all that good, but a lot of it is (if you read my last post) also dependant on the policies of the governing power in each country. Take Botswana for instance, they are working with the IMF and are progressing quite well.
In the majority of these cases, you can't just point a finger at one side and say that "they are wrong" it's a two way street. Their has to be co-operation on both sides. The IMF may appear to install hard-line policies that look really poor in the short run, but if the governing party in the country takes a serious approach to economic stabilization things can be positive in the long run.
As for your last paragraph - don't take a long if you can't repay it. And if you're going to talk about getting hooked on infrastructure projects, I hope you aren't talking about the 'clean water' debate.
If you want a book to read yourself, try reading "Economic Myths" by Luciani. | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 1:39:23 PM |
1) To get a developing country to reduce national investment may equalize the collective budget constraint thereby eliminating inequality on paper in the short run, but as they are a developing country, this is like shooting itself in the foot because its simply not viable to reduce national investment and still have future growth when you are already bankrupt.
I would agree with your last statement here - that's why I would argue that *more* government investment is needed. This would truly be "short-term" pain for "long-term" gain.
Yes, the government would be spending even more money during the short term. But in the long term it would be creating a stable economic basis and firm industrial sectors to establish further growth upon. I state again that this is what most Western developed nations have done to reach their present growth levels, and in fact some continue to exert heavy government investment.
The IMF approach of "sell everything" leaves developing nations nothing to work with. They don't even own the keys to their own house after this approach is implemented - how is this going to better them in the long-term?
How the hell do you impose a reduction in government spending? That is up to the party that is in power within that country at the time, and since they depend on votes to survive, they probably aren't going to reduce their spending. Similarily if this is a developing nation that is bankrupt, you can't very well impose a reduction in national consumption, as the people are most likely already at the level of subsistance anyway.
You impose a reduction in government spending by ensuring that any loan packages come with those strings attached. The IMF has been doing this since its inception. It is how it ensures *all* of its policies take effect in the countries it meddles with. (If you've read both Stiglitz and Lucas, surely you've heard of Structural Adjustment Programs, or SAP's....)
But once again, this reduction in government spending continually proposed by the IMF has had disastrous consequences all over the world. There are sharks in the waters of international economics, and without government regulation during a nation's inception years, any developing country will get taken for the proverbial ride.
If the bankrupt country decides to call in the IMF to negotiate with lending coutries to provide "Aid Packages" (ie- debt forgiveness), well that decision still rests with the lending countries, and they usually wish to see some reason as to why they should forgive the debt.
This is where you lost me, and I actually began to wonder if you knew what you were talking about.
The IMF operates by pooling amounts of currency. If a nation needs a loan, the IMF will trade them 1000 pesos for 1000 american dollars, for example. Then, after a set amount of time, this loan will be expected to be paid back. (I believe the IMF also arranges loans with various banks and financial institutions as well, but I think these go through the World Bank.)
Of course, the economic policies forced on borrowing nations has traditionally worsened the situation and instead of paying back loans at the end of their term, most borrowing nations have had to borrow more. (To repay its former loan and continue to have funds to operate...) Its a deepening spiral.
Above all else the IMF enforces loan repayment. This became especially true after Mexico defaulted in the mid-70's and caused somewhat of a global financial crisis. Through various pressures, the IMF forced Mexico to continue to repay its loan and took a much stronger line with any country even talking about defaulting.
The notion that countries go to the IMF for debt relief is comical, unless those countries are only going to the IMF to borrow *more* money to repay former debts.
The problem is that economists tend to look towards the Long Run, with the hopes of stabilizing the economic state of the country and opening the credit markets to the countries again
But this is simply *not true*. Forcing a country to borrow more money to repay a debt, for example, is not truly looking to the long-term. Forcing a country to sell all its assets and refuse it the right to levy fees and taxes on the corps moving in to take those assets kills the prospect of future growth. How can these policies better a country in the long term?
What the IMF excels at doing is leveraging the global financial institutions nickel from developing countries, whether they can afford it or not.
Well, it was sh*t before the IMF got involved, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to touch it in the first place.
This might be true, but as demonstrated in the East Asia Crisis, or the Argentina Meltdown for example, IMF policies take a bad situation and make it infinitely worse. It is a strong statement that those countries that basically take the risk and ignore IMF advice completely are some of the strongest economic nations in the world today. Cases like China, or Malaysia during the East Asia crisis prove this clearly.
And in that case - is the IMF to blame? I think instead you should take a good long look at the governments of these developing countries and maybe start throwing blame their way.
And this is the main reason why the IMF is worse today than it ever was. Despite all the disasters, crises and economic meltdowns of the past several decades, to the folks at the IMF *it is never their fault.* Not even a little.
Proponents of the IMF always blame the countries or governments involved and never reassess their own policies that might have led directly to the crises that occurred. There is no growth within the institution as a result, and the same old bad policies keep getting pushed.
And yes, the IMF generally does know much more than its detractors
Once again, arrogance, hubris and an inability to learn from past mistakes. These might be fine attributes of your personal life, but they're little pills of cyanide in the world of international development.
So don't talk to me about how good the IMF is... I've read a little too much to actually believe it. | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 1:42:19 PM | Ah! The ol', "can't make an omlete without breaking a few eggs" arguement. Original.
Ok, I will admit you are intelligent and know something of economics, but your perspective is skewed. Bechtel bribed the Bolivian leader in Cochabamba to own the water supply (which used to belong to the people). When they kept raising the price, revolution was the result.
...they complain when they don't receive it the way they want it.
Water. hmmm. I can see that.
Coati,
Damn good post. In case no one here acknowledges it. You know a lot about the IMF (more than me for sure). | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 1:59:25 PM | Sounds like how the Corporate business world works as well
Corporate business is a terrible model for international development. The two are not even the same ball-park. Corporate finance must ensure the maximum return for its shareholders, taking risks and possibly operating on very unstable and shifting grounds.
International development, on the other hand, means creating that stable footing for a nation to get a leg up on. Creating an atmosphere of shifting risk only worsens the situation and creates more need.
You can't have a competitive marketplace at home and then support Utilitarianism worldwide
Why not? Sure, push competitive markets at home - but pushing them into countries that are not fully developed to support them will (and arguably HAS) create havoc, financial instability and disparity in those nations.
Much better for the "long term" to ensure those countries are developed and have the required framework for the competitive markets that you're pushing.
These developing countries want globalisation, but they complain when they don't receive it the way they want it. They have this perceived notion that the world should give willingly to them without any return warranted. Then everyone gets up in arms when it seems as if those who are 'in-power' received a better deal
Once again, blaming the countries involved with nary a criticism of the IMF. And developing nations don't require being given things with no return - all they require is a level playing field and the ability to develop. These are two things the IMF continually takes away.'
without the IMF all of Africa would look like Zimbabwe.
Strong statement. I see nothing to back it up.
Take Botswana for instance, they are working with the IMF and are progressing quite well.
Botswana is another of those nations that was able to ignore IMF advice. Yes, they worked with the institution, but it was only one of many that they took advice from. (Other examples include the Ford Foundation.) When the IMF gave bad advice, the Botswanan government just ignored them.
The diamond industry is one of the main reasons why Botswana could do this. But if they had listened to the IMF they would have given up about three quarters of their concessions from this industry at its start. Thankfully they listened to outside advice and didn't - and thus are a somewhat prosperous nation today.
The success of Botswana is an example of why the IMF *shouldn't* be listened to.
In the majority of these cases, you can't just point a finger at one side and say that "they are wrong" it's a two way street. Their has to be co-operation on both sides.
Agreed. Unfortunately, most of those at the IMF don't believe this, forcing completely lop-sided trade and loan deals down developing nations throats with a "take-it-or-leave-it" attitude.
Then, if the developing nations leave it, the IMF uses their considerable clout within other international institutions to prevent that country from gaining any more help. Not to mention the influence has on the international markets...
As for your last paragraph - don't take a long if you can't repay it.
Ridiculous argument. Especially since the programs foisted on developing nations as conditions for the loan are KEY factors in that countries inability to repay the loan.
You're a smart guy, BN, but you need to get your head out of the neo-liberal policy books and actually look at the effect they're having on the world.
| |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 2:06:44 PM |
Damn good post. In case no one here acknowledges it.
Thanks Joe. Undeserved praise for the IMF gets me a little hot under the collar. I think some people think of the organization as this little group of wise old men who are so knowledgable and can do no wrong.
In reality though, things are much different. Like I said earlier, many if not most of the worlds problems today can be lain at the IMF's feet... And the willingness to continue and keep pushing such failed policies boggles my mind. | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 4:22:11 PM | Yes I've read Stiglitz, I've read Stigler, I've read Ben-Porath, I've read Mincer, I've read more than I care to remember, I've interned at both the ECB and the WTO, and I teach International Monetary Theory at the University level. I also do research in financial and IPR law.
I know the 'evils' of globalization. Believe it or not, I'm considered progressive amongst my circle of peers for my views on international debt financing and globalization. However, I'm also a realist with a first hand view of the realities of the situation.
You're an engineer, you revere math, you understand the logic of mathematics. But from reading you, I would also surmise that you appreciate the fact that there are often exogenous and unobserved variables that cannot be controlled for or even perceived - mostly to do with human behaviour (although given my impressive lack of knowledge in engineering, I'm not quite sure how often these impact your work). Economics on the other hand is a nasty hodgepodge of Math, politics, history and psychology. However, the only thing that can be controlled for in Economics are those variables that are concrete and observable. There has been a recent movement towards behavioural economics and neural economics recently, especially through the efforts of Becker and Akerlof. But for now their theories aren't very viable or stable.
Now, you're completely wrong, I don't believe in
short-term pain equals long-term gain .
But I do believe in awareness of the differences and the often contradictory results of long-term versus short-term planning. Should I rather believe in the short-sighted view of most politicians who only institute actions that will reap benefits within the span of their tenure, even at the expense of future generations (such as Bush's tax plan). If you live in Canada take a look at Trudeau (a supposed hero) and his activities in the realm of trade and monetary policy. And then look far forward and see how this has impacted our present day state. Then look at the state of Germany's economic existence and see how much their success is actually a result of the economic ruin brought about by WW2 coupled with a progressive and intelligent gov't (for reference you may wish to read Solow and his views of growth models). This has nothing to do with the view that the short run must be "painful", but you'd be hard pressed to find an economist who will not admit that long run stability can be achieved while only apporaching what is beneficial to the short run. And yes, sometimes sacrifices must be made in order to stabilize in the long run, take Canada's zero-inflation policy for instance. And this hardly a neo-liberal view of economics, in fact it's well grounded in long-standing neo-classical theory. If I were neo-liberal I'd be advocating some such nonsense about the IMF fixing the root of problems rather than attempting to alleviate the problems after they have already occurred. Oops, that's your standpoint not mine.
In regards to this, yes, the IMF does tend to take 'one size fits all' approach, in theory. That's the key, in theory. Once a country is bankrupt, if we follow the approach of basic Walresian dynamics (which is pretty much the governing theory of national budget accounting, and is well tested and proven) there is very little that can be catered to each country. The essence of the problem is the state of bankruptcy and there are only very few solutions to that problem regardless of the cultural, regional, religious or economic variables at play.
That's not to say that those factors are irrelevant as a whole. No not all. To your line of thinking, they are important, and I have to credit your line of thinking as being pro-active, and congratulate you. Yes, the wisest course of action is to prevent bankruptcy before it happens. However, that's a domestic problem. The IMF is not the economic watchdog society, nor is it some sort of surrogate mother to fledgling economies. Saying that the IMF should look at the roots of the problem is similar to my going to a doctor with a bad case of pneumoniaconiosis and then complaining because the doctor cannot get me a job outside of a silica mine. It's not his job. Nor is it the job of the IMF to go in and fix the economic problems of developing nations. That's why they are called the "International MONETARY FUND". You're probably thinking of something along the lines of the OECD - The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (now there's an organization I would give my left nut to work for).
Listen, I'm not going to say that the IMF has never made any errors that are all their own, and I'm not going to say that they haven't been used by more developed nations for the pure advantage of the developed nation. No, the IMF is a tool, its intention is not to help intitiate economic growth, it's a safety net. And like some tools, it has been used for good, and others hav also taken advantage of it. You can use a knife to cut your bread or you stab someone in the forehead with it.
Look, all I'm saying is if you want to fix blame and condemnation on someone, try first looking at the governing party of the country that went bankrupt, and then look at the developed nations that seek to take advantage of this country through the use of the IMF. But open your eyes beyond blaming the IMF. | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 4:32:35 PM | I'm getting the feeling that at some points we are arguing the same side of the coin here without realizing it. You want to start a separate forum for this discussion?
Once again, arrogance, hubris and an inability to learn from past mistakes. These might be fine attributes of your personal life
And try to avoid personal attacks when you know nothing of the person you speak of. I'm debating with you for intelligent discourse, not to be the subject personal jibes. | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 4:47:01 PM |
Once again, arrogance, hubris and an inability to learn from past mistakes. These might be fine attributes of your personal life
And try to avoid personal attacks when you know nothing of the person you speak of. I'm debating with you for intelligent discourse, not to be the subject personal jibes.
My bad, and apologies. That statement didn't come out the way I intended - it was never meant as a personal attack.
What was meant was "These might be fine attributes of *somebodys* personal life." Didn't mean to imply your personal life specifically, and didn't mean it as an insult. (As anybody in the dating world knows, sometimes arrogance and hubris *is* called for, unfortunately... Just look at the "description" paragraph in our profiles for an example...)
And yeah, another thread sounds like a good plan. Just watching the super-bowl right now, but I'll start one later tonight.
And incidently, don't think you can intimidate me by throwing around various economics terms like candy. Admittedly, if you're an instructor in economics, then you know more than I do about the theory.
My argument is simple - the theory that economists have taken as gospel the last fifty years or so is flawed. But I'll back that statement up in the thread we create... The Pats are getting close to the end-zone.. *grin* | |
|
| Now let me get this Straight,Bush is a Great guy and He is Going to Save Us All...*J*
Posted: 2/6/2005 4:55:52 PM | Turnover. Sorry, I've got money on the Eagles.
I and most economists would agree that the last fifty years of economic theory is flawed (Chicago theorists excluded).
And I wasn't attempting to intimidate you with economic terms. I had (maybe incorrectly) assumed that you had had some training in economics - maybe as electives - as you sound as if you have a grasp of fundamentals - my apologies. | |
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
Page
2
of
6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
|
|
Home
login 
Is it posible for you people to have become any more off topic,oh well I guess y'll gotta go Bullsh!t somewhere...