Saying hi!

SouthernBelle82

New member
Hi everyone,
I'm new here and I'm twenty-five and a college student studying criminal justice and want to focus on Criminology. Politically I associate myself as a socialist. In my free time I love to read, listen to music, watch movies and play video games. :)
 
Welcome to our madness :D

I am an old fart who leans toward the liberal side ohn humanistic issues, but am pretty conservative on money issues.
 
Hey Sourthern bell. How do you feel about globalization and the world bank and the imf and shipping american jobs overseas to be performed by slaves?
 
Just bring the slave here AHZ. Ohh wait we are already doing that, the illegal immigration thing...
 
Hello. Here's how I feel on these issues.

Globalization- We talked a lot about this in a political class I had last term. John Kerry wrote a book once called "The New War" which is about globalization and represents my views pretty well. Here's a little bit what the book is about-
http://www.amazon.com/New-War-Threatens-Americas-Security/dp/0684846144 If we are going to have globalization we should take international laws more seriously.

World Bank- I think they're too biased and have always had someone represent the bank from the US. I would like to see other country's get invovled with that role. I'm with Hugo Chavez on that and the global south should have their own bank if enough intrest is there to run it etc. They are more in touch with the issues of the global south than the global north is.

IMF- I'm not sure what you mean.

Jobs going over seas- I don't like sweatshops and find them disgusting. Especially those with child labor. Here in my state the governor made a law stating if you create a job that is started in the state it has to stay here. More jobs have been created since then. I think whomever is the next president should make a law like that as well. Where it concerns immigration it's tough to become a legal immigrant. I think the laws to become legal should be re looked at and debated. Also I think we should work more on ALL of our boarders and ports etc. like what John Kerry talked about in 2004. We should also be concentrating on the companies who hire undocumented workers and should have a sort of "three strikes" rule against them.



Hey Sourthern bell. How do you feel about globalization and the world bank and the imf and shipping american jobs overseas to be performed by slaves?
 
Hello. Here's how I feel on these issues.

Globalization- We talked a lot about this in a political class I had last term. John Kerry wrote a book once called "The New War" which is about globalization and represents my views pretty well. Here's a little bit what the book is about-
http://www.amazon.com/New-War-Threatens-Americas-Security/dp/0684846144 If we are going to have globalization we should take international laws more seriously.

World Bank- I think they're too biased and have always had someone represent the bank from the US. I would like to see other country's get invovled with that role. I'm with Hugo Chavez on that and the global south should have their own bank if enough intrest is there to run it etc. They are more in touch with the issues of the global south than the global north is.

IMF- I'm not sure what you mean.

Jobs going over seas- I don't like sweatshops and find them disgusting. Especially those with child labor. Here in my state the governor made a law stating if you create a job that is started in the state it has to stay here. More jobs have been created since then. I think whomever is the next president should make a law like that as well. Where it concerns immigration it's tough to become a legal immigrant. I think the laws to become legal should be re looked at and debated. Also I think we should work more on ALL of our boarders and ports etc. like what John Kerry talked about in 2004. We should also be concentrating on the companies who hire undocumented workers and should have a sort of "three strikes" rule against them.

But what about not "having" globalization. was that side of the argument presented? It's my belief we should limit trade to partners who share our views on personal freedom and equality of opportunity. Of course, the fascists attack me for this.

check out this article about the world bank and how it operates.

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold
The Globalizer Who Came In From the Cold
Published October 10th, 2001 in Articles
JOE STIGLITZ: TODAY’S WINNER OF THE NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS

by Greg Palast

The World Bank’s former Chief Economist’s accusations are eye-popping - including how the IMF and US Treasury fixed the Russian elections

“It has condemned people to death,” the former apparatchik told me. This was like a scene out of Le Carre. The brilliant old agent comes in from the cold, crosses to our side, and in hours of debriefing, empties his memory of horrors committed in the name of a political ideology he now realizes has gone rotten.

And here before me was a far bigger catch than some used Cold War spy. Joseph Stiglitz was Chief Economist of the World Bank. To a great extent, the new world economic order was his theory come to life.

I “debriefed” Stigltiz over several days, at Cambridge University, in a London hotel and finally in Washington in April 2001 during the big confab of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But instead of chairing the meetings of ministers and central bankers, Stiglitz was kept exiled safely behind the blue police cordons, the same as the nuns carrying a large wooden cross, the Bolivian union leaders, the parents of AIDS victims and the other ‘anti-globalization’ protesters. The ultimate insider was now on the outside.

In 1999 the World Bank fired Stiglitz. He was not allowed quiet retirement; US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, I’m told, demanded a public excommunication for Stiglitz’ having expressed his first mild dissent from globalization World Bank style.

Here in Washington we completed the last of several hours of exclusive interviews for The Observer and BBC TV’s Newsnight about the real, often hidden, workings of the IMF, World Bank, and the bank’s 51% owner, the US Treasury.

And here, from sources unnamable (not Stiglitz), we obtained a cache of documents marked, “confidential,” “restricted,” and “not otherwise (to be) disclosed without World Bank authorization.”

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.”

So then I turned on Stiglitz. OK, Mr Smart-Guy Professor, how would you help developing nations? Stiglitz proposed radical land reform, an attack at the heart of “landlordism,” on the usurious rents charged by the propertied oligarchies worldwide, typically 50% of a tenant’s crops. So I had to ask the professor: as you were top economist at the World Bank, why didn’t the Bank follow your advice?

“If you challenge [land ownership], that would be a change in the power of the elites. That’s not high on their agenda.” Apparently not.

Ultimately, what drove him to put his job on the line was the failure of the banks and US Treasury to change course when confronted with the crises - failures and suffering perpetrated by their four-step monetarist mambo. Every time their free market solutions failed, the IMF simply demanded more free market policies.

“It’s a little like the Middle Ages,” the insider told me, “When the patient died they would say, “well, he stopped the bloodletting too soon, he still had a little blood in him.”

I took away from my talks with the professor that the solution to world poverty and crisis is simple: remove the bloodsuckers.

******

A version of this was first published as “The IMF’s Four Steps to Damnation” in The Observer (London) in April and another version in The Big Issue - that’s the magazine that the homeless flog on platforms in the London Underground. Big Issue offered equal space to the IMF, whose “deputy chief media officer” wrote:

“… I find it impossible to respond given the depth and breadth of hearsay and misinformation in [Palast’s] report.”

Of course it was difficult for the Deputy Chief to respond. The information (and documents) came from the unhappy lot inside his agency and the World Bank.

Award-winning reporter Palast writes Inside Corporate America for the London Observer. To read other Palast reports, to contact the author or to subscribe to his column, go to GregPalast.Com
 
I believe in a fair trade program where EVERYONE gets to trade and not just people we like or don't like. I also don't like the Marshall plan either. If a country's people want to go in a direction we don't like oh well. Not our problem. Where it concerns not having globalization I think that's impossible. Again with a John Kerry reference but when you said that this quote from him fits it perfectly: "We are a part of the world not just a country." We're not only citizen's of the United States but we're citizen's of Earth. We should want to work with other people and be involved in the international community. And your idea of personal freedom might not match someone else's. What are you politically? I'm a socialist so I have different opinions on freedom and liberty than you might. So you're not going to trade with me because I'm a socialist? Oh the horror! I already know about the World Bank thanks. I asked about IMF.

But what about not "having" globalization. was that side of the argument presented? It's my belief we should limit trade to partners who share our views on personal freedom and equality of opportunity. Of course, the fascists attack me for this.

check out this article about the world bank and how it operates.
 
I believe in a fair trade program where EVERYONE gets to trade and not just people we like or don't like. I also don't like the Marshall plan either. If a country's people want to go in a direction we don't like oh well. Not our problem. Where it concerns not having globalization I think that's impossible. Again with a John Kerry reference but when you said that this quote from him fits it perfectly: "We are a part of the world not just a country." We're not only citizen's of the United States but we're citizen's of Earth. We should want to work with other people and be involved in the international community. And your idea of personal freedom might not match someone else's. What are you politically? I'm a socialist so I have different opinions on freedom and liberty than you might. So you're not going to trade with me because I'm a socialist? Oh the horror! I already know about the World Bank thanks. I asked about IMF.



It's not about LIKING OR DISLIKING. It's about "how do free people compete with slave labor?" Can you answer that?

And socialism is just fascism with a nice face of lies plastered over it.

Im basically a populist. No party represents me.

The imf gives loans to developing countries they can never repay and then uses the leverage to dictate all internal policies.
 
Hello. Here's how I feel on these issues.

Globalization- We talked a lot about this in a political class I had last term. John Kerry wrote a book once called "The New War" which is about globalization and represents my views pretty well. Here's a little bit what the book is about-
http://www.amazon.com/New-War-Threatens-Americas-Security/dp/0684846144 If we are going to have globalization we should take international laws more seriously.

World Bank- I think they're too biased and have always had someone represent the bank from the US. I would like to see other country's get invovled with that role. I'm with Hugo Chavez on that and the global south should have their own bank if enough intrest is there to run it etc. They are more in touch with the issues of the global south than the global north is.

IMF- I'm not sure what you mean.

Jobs going over seas- I don't like sweatshops and find them disgusting. Especially those with child labor. Here in my state the governor made a law stating if you create a job that is started in the state it has to stay here. More jobs have been created since then. I think whomever is the next president should make a law like that as well. Where it concerns immigration it's tough to become a legal immigrant. I think the laws to become legal should be re looked at and debated. Also I think we should work more on ALL of our boarders and ports etc. like what John Kerry talked about in 2004. We should also be concentrating on the companies who hire undocumented workers and should have a sort of "three strikes" rule against them.


I think I like this Gal :cheer:
 
Free people can vote. They can do coups etc. They can get a new government. Look at the Boliviarian revolution in Venezuela. Check out http://www.handsoffvenezuela.com

Socialism is fascism? LOL! That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard anyone say about socalism and I've heard a lot.

And with the IMF I do agree there. Especially with poorer Latin American country's. That's one reason why Hugo Chavez got Venezuela out of the World Bank as soon as he paid off their debts. It's a total rip off.

It's not about LIKING OR DISLIKING. It's about "how do free people compete with slave labor?" Can you answer that?

And socialism is just fascism with a nice face of lies plastered over it.

Im basically a populist. No party represents me.

The imf gives loans to developing countries they can never repay and then uses the leverage to dictate all internal policies.
 
Free people can vote. They can do coups etc. They can get a new government. Look at the Boliviarian revolution in Venezuela. Check out http://www.handsoffvenezuela.com

How do free workers compete with slaves? Are you saying they should revolt and then change policy so they don't have to compete with slaves?

How do free workers compete with slave labor? You dodged this one.


Socialism is fascism? LOL! That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard anyone say about socalism and I've heard a lot.
Not really. No socialist government has ever really made everyone equal. In fact, under socialism power is focused into the hands of a very tiny elite. Government taking over business (socialism) or business taking over government (fascism) arrive at the same end-state, complete power focused into the hands of a few, regardless of the language plastered over the top.
And with the IMF I do agree there. Especially with poorer Latin American country's. That's one reason why Hugo Chavez got Venezuela out of the World Bank as soon as he paid off their debts. It's a total rip off.

It is a rip off.
 
Last edited:
I didn't dodge it. I answered your question and you apparently didn't like the answer. Oh well. Not my problem.

I guess if by not everyone equal and a country you're ignoring what's going on in Venezuela. Sure I guess they'd like to now know they apparently don't exist. Who knew? LOL. Very tiny elite? Again tell that to the people of Venezuela. Did you follow their last election? I guess not. Business taking over government is not socialism. Not even Communism. Hands of the few? Again I guess you missed Venezuela's last election which the people decided the outcome and Chavez accepted it. You're a rip off. Try educating yourself on what socialism is. You think you know it but you clearly have no freakin clue. And when an actual socialist tells you that you're clueless than that might make you want to question yourself does it not? I'm not going to hold my breath though.

How do free workers compete with slaves? Are you saying they should revolt and then change policy so they don't have to compete with slaves?

How do free workers compete with slave labor? You dodged this one.



Not really. No socialist government has ever really made everyone equal. In fact, under socialism power is focused into the hands of a very tiny elite. Government taking over business (socialism) or business taking over government (fascism) arrive at the send end-state, complete power focused into the hands of a few, regardless of the language platered over the top.


It is a rip off.
 
I didn't dodge it. I answered your question and you apparently didn't like the answer. Oh well. Not my problem.
No you didn't answer it. You said we can vote. I assume you mean we can vote in a different trade policy. Im asking YOU about YOUR belief as to how in a fully global context free people compete with slaves. You dodged it.
I guess if by not everyone equal and a country you're ignoring what's going on in Venezuela.
fascism.
Sure I guess they'd like to now know they apparently don't exist. Who knew? LOL. Very tiny elite? Again tell that to the people of Venezuela. Did you follow their last election? I guess not. Business taking over government is not socialism.
I said it's fascism. Reread if you must.
Not even Communism. Hands of the few? Again I guess you missed Venezuela's last election which the people decided the outcome and Chavez accepted it. You're a rip off. Try educating yourself on what socialism is. You think you know it but you clearly have no freakin clue. And when an actual socialist tells you that you're clueless than that might make you want to question yourself does it not? I'm not going to hold my breath though.

ANd you merely think you know it all but cannot answer simple questions about your own beliefs.
 
No hun I did answer it. I said you can vote. You can get new leadership in your government to make laws that agree with you on the issues. That is how you can change things. So no I didn't dodge it. I answered your question and you don't like my answer. Stop harassing me. I'm not going to answer the question again. No hun it's not fascism. It's socialism. Go to http://www.sp-usa.org Read all of that website and than come back and say it's still fascism. Don't come into a thread where I'm introducing myself and say socialism is fascism when an actual socialist is telling you that you'r freakin wrong. Get a damn clue!

No you didn't answer it. You said we can vote. I assume you mean we can vote in a different trade policy. Im asking YOU about YOUR belief as to how in a fully global context free people compete with slaves. You dodged it.

fascism.

I said it's fascism. Reread if you must.


ANd you merely think you know it all but cannot answer simple questions about your own beliefs.
 
Back
Top