US Exposure to EU Bailout: $50 Billion and Counting

Another Yurt classic, 2nd to the false analogy - the false inference of belief.

Just admit you made a false analogy in trying for another lib "gotcha."

its not false and not a false analogy...libs do not mind being the world bank and they are by and large the largest group who complains about it and youi are in fact naive if you think the US is going to be the world's bank and not the world's police, its been hand in hand since the beginning
 
How does sending $50 billion WE DON'T HAVE to pay for others spending money THEY did not have, supposed to HELP anything? It's not a matter of spending it elsewhere. It's a matter that we SHOULD NOT BE SPENDING IT AT ALL!
 
its not false and not a false analogy...libs do not mind being the world bank and they are by and large the largest group who complains about it and youi are in fact naive if you think the US is going to be the world's bank and not the world's police, its been hand in hand since the beginning

Providing financial assistance does not go "hand in hand" with using our military in a policeman kind of role.

You can argue that, in the instances where we have acted as "global cop," there was ultimately an economic motivation, but that is a far, far different thing philisophically than supporting financial assistance. There simply isn't any inconsistency with supporting financial assistance, and also believing that we shouldn't use our military in a global cop role.

It's an absurd contention.
 
Providing financial assistance does not go "hand in hand" with using our military in a policeman kind of role.

You can argue that, in the instances where we have acted as "global cop," there was ultimately an economic motivation, but that is a far, far different thing philisophically than supporting financial assistance. There simply isn't any inconsistency with supporting financial assistance, and also believing that we shouldn't use our military in a global cop role.

It's an absurd contention.

Here is what actually comes with assistance, national rape on a grand scale

Stiglitz helped translate one from bureaucratise, a "Country Assistance Strategy." There's an Assistance Strategy for every poorer nation, designed, says the World Bank, after careful in-country investigation. But according to insider Stiglitz, the Bank's staff 'investigation' consists of close inspection of a nation's 5-star hotels. It concludes with the Bank staff meeting some begging, busted finance minister who is handed a 'restructuring agreement' pre-drafted for his 'voluntary' signature (I have a selection of these).

Each nation's economy is individually analyzed, then, says Stiglitz, the Bank hands every minister the same exact four-step program.

Step One is Privatization - which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, 'Briberization.' Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders - using the World Bank's demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.

And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest 'briberization' of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. "The US Treasury view was this was great as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected. We don't care if it's a corrupt election. We want the money to go to Yeltzin" via kick-backs for his campaign.

Stiglitz is no conspiracy nutter ranting about Black Helicopters. The man was inside the game, a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet as Chairman of the President's council of economic advisors.

Most ill-making for Stiglitz is that the US-backed oligarchs stripped Russia's industrial assets, with the effect that the corruption scheme cut national output nearly in half causing depression and starvation.

After briberization, Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is 'Capital Market Liberalization.' In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "Hot Money" cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation's reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation's own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.

"The result was predictable," said Stiglitz of the Hot Money tidal waves in Asia and Latin America. Higher interest rates demolished property values, savaged industrial production and drained national treasuries.

At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, "The IMF riot."

The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You'd almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan.

And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that, while in the States, BBC and The Observer obtained several documents from inside the World Bank, stamped over with those pesky warnings, "confidential," "restricted," "not to be disclosed." Let's get back to one: the "Interim Country Assistance Strategy" for Ecuador, in it the Bank several times states - with cold accuracy - that they expected their plans to spark, "social unrest," to use their bureaucratic term for a nation in flames.

That's not surprising. The secret report notes that the plan to make the US dollar Ecuador's currency has pushed 51% of the population below the poverty line. The World Bank "Assistance" plan simply calls for facing down civil strife and suffering with, "political resolve" - and still higher prices.

The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and teargas) cause new panicked flights of capital and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has it's bright side - for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets, such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices.

Stiglitz notes that the IMF and World Bank are not heartless adherents to market economics. At the same time the IMF stopped Indonesia 'subsidizing' food purchases, "when the banks need a bail-out, intervention (in the market) is welcome." The IMF scrounged up tens of billions of dollars to save Indonesia's financiers and, by extension, the US and European banks from which they had borrowed.

A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers in this system but one clear winner: the Western banks and US Treasury, making the big bucks off this crazy new international capital churn. Stiglitz told me about his unhappy meeting, early in his World Bank tenure, with Ethopia's new president in the nation's first democratic election. The World Bank and IMF had ordered Ethiopia to divert aid money to its reserve account at the US Treasury, which pays a pitiful 4% return, while the nation borrowed US dollars at 12% to feed its population. The new president begged Stiglitz to let him use the aid money to rebuild the nation. But no, the loot went straight off to the US Treasury's vault in Washington.

Now we arrive at Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their "poverty reduction strategy": Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank, Stiglitz the insider likens free trade WTO-style to the Opium Wars. "That too was about opening markets," he said. As in the 19th century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa, while barricading our own markets against Third World agriculture.

In the Opium Wars, the West used military blockades to force open markets for their unbalanced trade. Today, the World Bank can order a financial blockade just as effective - and sometimes just as deadly.

Stiglitz is particularly emotional over the WTO's intellectual property rights treaty (it goes by the acronym TRIPS, more on that in the next chapters). It is here, says the economist, that the new global order has "condemned people to death" by imposing impossible tariffs and tributes to pay to pharmaceutical companies for branded medicines. "They don't care," said the professor of the corporations and bank loans he worked with, "if people live or die."

By the way, don't be confused by the mix in this discussion of the IMF, World Bank and WTO. They are interchangeable masks of a single governance system. They have locked themselves together by what are unpleasantly called, "triggers." Taking a World Bank loan for a school 'triggers' a requirement to accept every 'conditionality' - they average 111 per nation - laid down by both the World Bank and IMF. In fact, said Stiglitz the IMF requires nations to accept trade policies more punitive than the official WTO rules.

Stiglitz greatest concern is that World Bank plans, devised in secrecy and driven by an absolutist ideology, are never open for discourse or dissent. Despite the West's push for elections throughout the developing world, the so-called Poverty Reduction Programs "undermine democracy."

And they don't work. Black Africa's productivity under the guiding hand of IMF structural "assistance" has gone to hell in a handbag. Did any nation avoid this fate? Yes, said Stiglitz, identifying Botswana. Their trick? "They told the IMF to go packing."
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold/
 
Providing financial assistance does not go "hand in hand" with using our military in a policeman kind of role.

You can argue that, in the instances where we have acted as "global cop," there was ultimately an economic motivation, but that is a far, far different thing philisophically than supporting financial assistance. There simply isn't any inconsistency with supporting financial assistance, and also believing that we shouldn't use our military in a global cop role.

It's an absurd contention.

yet, our history shows that my contention is reality, it has always gone hand in hand....you can dream away onceler and continue being naive, but when you bury your head in the sand you never see the light of day
 
yet, our history shows that my contention is reality, it has always gone hand in hand....you can dream away onceler and continue being naive, but when you bury your head in the sand you never see the light of day

That's just it, though. History does NOT show it has gone hand in hand. By supporting financial assistance, someone is by no means supporting the idea of military intervention.

It's a ridiculous thing to assert, or to try to equate on a philisophical level (as you did).
 
That's just it, though. History does NOT show it has gone hand in hand. By supporting financial assistance, someone is by no means supporting the idea of military intervention.

It's a ridiculous thing to assert, or to try to equate on a philisophical level (as you did).

good lord, you really are more naive than i thought
 
good lord, you really are more naive than i thought

That's it? That's all you have in the quiver?

Are you really arguing that financial assistance = military intervention, and that there haven't been countless instances of financial assistance that did not in any way, shape or form equate to military intervention? Is the contention really that, as soon as we become involved financially, the military is soon to follow?

I feel like the hole you have dug is at a very shallow stage. You can keep digging and make it so deep that you can't get out of it, or figure out that what you said & implied is wrong, and come to terms with that.
 
onceler really cracks me up...he makes it out as "thats all you have"...

yet he hasn't produced anything more than his opinion

you're cute onceler, kinda like the annoying 7 year old cousin nobody plays with
 
onceler really cracks me up...he makes it out as "thats all you have"...

yet he hasn't produced anything more than his opinion

you're cute onceler, kinda like the annoying 7 year old cousin nobody plays with

I have nothing to defend. You made the implication; I didn't.

These things are facts: there have been countless instances where the U.S. has provided financial assistance, but has not played a military cop role as a result. Also, the idea of supporting financial assistance in general is very different philisophically from the idea of supporting using the military in a global policeman kind of role.

You know these things; you are now resorting to "oh how naive" and other infantile comments because you realize that, once again, you have stepped in it, in another failed "lib gotcha" attempt.
 
it would be nice if onceler would follow his own whining and just once admit he is wrong...he always whines that others never admit they are wrong (despite being a lie), yet onceler never admits he is wrong, he will continue and continue to argue indefensible positions to the point where its just laughable, like the dimwitted 10 year old red headed step child at the family reunion
 
it would be nice if onceler would follow his own whining and just once admit he is wrong...he always whines that others never admit they are wrong (despite being a lie), yet onceler never admits he is wrong, he will continue and continue to argue indefensible positions to the point where its just laughable, like the dimwitted 10 year old red headed step child at the family reunion

Are you certain that you're not an infant?

Responses like this are cool w/ me, because they're basically the message board equivalent of a white flag.

Yes, Virginia - there is a huge difference between supporting international financial assistance, and thinking our military should be used as a global police force.
 
you know better than that. I realize how connected we are... but again to push the problem into the future is NOT the answer. Will it allow us less pain NOW? Sure.

But it will hurt more later when it blows up, because it will then snow ball into everyone else. The graph depicted by the NY Times shows how intertwined the EU countries have become. To add the US to the mix (albeit a very tiny amount on a relative basis) is not a good idea.

First think they teach in First Aid.
Don't get involved in a situation that's going to make TWO victims, for the next responder.

If you can't swim, don't jump in a lake and TRY to help someone else.
Stay on the shoreline and try to help.
 
Back
Top