Globalization = security threat

Threedee said:
No, I'm saying you're an alarmist. We are a huge consumer nation.
Click to expand...

Im properly concerned. You're an anti-american conspirator trying to destroy america with idiotic globalization zealotry.

We're a consumer nation? That's your new argument? You're a clod.
 
Threedee said:
I'm the one promoting freedom, and its Siamese twin, capitalism.
Click to expand...

Bribing overseas dictators to enslave their people and drive down global wages has nothing to do with freedom.

Profiting from laying free people off too incentivize slavery has nothing to do with freedom either.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Bribing overseas dictators to enslave their people and drive down global wages has nothing to do with freedom.

Profiting from laying free people off too incentivize slavery has nothing to do with freedom either.
Click to expand...

You're right, encroaching upon people's commercial property rights is promoting freedom...
 
Threedee said:
You're right, encroaching upon people's commercial property rights is promoting freedom...
Click to expand...

I'm talking about dicators enslaving their people on behalf of corporations. that's more than property rights. maybe this article will educate you somewhat.

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/
 
I don't know why anyone would expect results from the IMF, but as for your first point, what's the problem with doing business with countries that tyranize their own people and don't guarantee them decent wages and benefits? Its not our job to force them to reform.
 
Threedee said:
I don't know why anyone would expect results from the IMF, but as for your first point, what's the problem with doing business with countries that tyranize their own people and don't guarantee them decent wages and benefits? Its not our job to force them to reform.
Click to expand...

It puts our free citizens out of work. And it further incentivizes foreign oppression. But i mention it to show that your pollyanna equation of capitalism = freedom is pretty head fucked, considering the political context in which markets form.

We used to not trade with oppressive regimes. We should go back to that, instead of encouraging them to abuse their people on our corporate behalf.
 
Last edited:
So what's your response to the claims that there are numerous menial jobs which most Americans view as demeaning and beneith them to perform, making unemployment securities a better alternative?

1) Are the claims valid?
2) What should government do if the answer to 1 is "yes."
3) If 1 is "yes," doesn't this indicate that Americans want our trade imbalance to continue?
 
AssHatZombie said:
People with no jobs would love to manufacture a cheap plastic toy.
Click to expand...

Why should people subsidize jobs? What is the point of paying someone $20/hr to make plastic toys when we can pay someone else $2/hr?

When jobs go overseas or to Mexico the unemployed folks should have access to free training/education. Rather than make people pay more a plastic toy just so someone can have a job let the people buy the toy cheaper and raise taxes to help the unemployed person learn a new skill.

Rather than pay $20 for a toy that takes one hour to make people can pay $10 for the toy and pay another $5 to go towards the unemployed's retraining. The person saves and the unemployed individual learns a new profession. Everyone gains.

But noooo. Make people work. Any job as long as they are working. Can't have someone getting "something for nothing".

People heads need adjustment!
 
apple0154 said:
Why should people subsidize jobs? What is the point of paying someone $20/hr to make plastic toys when we can pay someone else $2/hr?
Click to expand...
It keeps the money in our economy instead of sending it overseas. It keeps americans employes. it disincentivizes oppression overseas as well.
When jobs go overseas or to Mexico the unemployed folks should have access to free training/education. Rather than make people pay more a plastic toy just so someone can have a job let the people buy the toy cheaper and raise taxes to help the unemployed person learn a new skill.
Click to expand...
Training for what? They're outsourcing the job or importing the workers for all kinds of professions now.
Rather than pay $20 for a toy that takes one hour to make people can pay $10 for the toy and pay another $5 to go towards the unemployed's retraining. The person saves and the unemployed individual learns a new profession. Everyone gains.
Click to expand...
A messy and stupid plan. sorry. You're full of fail.
But noooo. Make people work. Any job as long as they are working. Can't have someone getting "something for nothing".

People heads need adjustment!
Click to expand...

You're a moronic cretinesque rube.

I adjust your head for you.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
Training for what? They're outsourcing the job or importing the workers for all kinds of professions now.
Click to expand...

From all the uproar about the Obama medical plan and shortage of staff maybe training in a health profession is a good place to start.

You're a moronic cretinesque rube.
Click to expand...

Thank-you. Coming for you that's quite a compliment. :)

So, what is the difference between paying $20 for an item so someone has a job here or paying $10 for the item to be made elsewhere and giving the other $10 to the guy who lost his job? In both cases the item costs you $20.

The benefit of doing the latter is the guy can retrain and use his time to better advantage. The former is nothing more than a make-work project.
 
apple0154 said:
From all the uproar about the Obama medical plan and shortage of staff maybe training in a health profession is a good place to start.
Click to expand...
Not really. The unintended consequence of unrealistic promises and collectivist dreams is rationing. this means a race to the bottom condition for healthcare professionals. They're already doing it to teachers.

Saying it's gonna be a "good field" is one way of helping to glut the labor market. You're doing your part.

obama is a betrayer of the people.
Thank-you. Coming for you that's quite a compliment. :)
Click to expand...
Well you're a filthy cumguzzling whore then! Hows that coming from me?
So, what is the difference between paying $20 for an item so someone has a job here or paying $10 for the item to be made elsewhere and giving the other $10 to the guy who lost his job? In both cases the item costs you $20.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yeah. that's why she's been back to undo my ownage of her. Oh wait. she hasn't.

Would you say you always agree with Apple the turbo lib anti american idiot?
Click to expand...

If its between him and you, always. And you're not exactly pro-American yourself. You reject 100% our founding principles, and you loathe freedom.
 
Threedee said:
If its between him and you, always. And you're not exactly pro-American yourself. You reject 100% our founding principles, and you loathe freedom.
Click to expand...

Our founding principles are based on fighting foreign control not encouraging it via globalist idiocy like you espouse. woah. I just jizzed on you again. My nuts are almost on E.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top