A discussion on free trade

businessmen selling out their nation does not equall enlightenment or wisdom. It's simply betrayal by an elite paid by foreign powers. We need more ceo perp walks.
 
Last edited:
We're taking it all the way, Stringfield. After you wipe the blood off your anus, you'll realize you may be smarter for the ride.
 
The EU as well as China do exactly this...along with all their other products...does Australia also fall in this category?...my bet would be yes!

No, we don't protect our farmers. That's why the US pisses us off when it invades our traditional markets (a by-product of the invasion of Iraq was the loss of wheat contracts which have existed for many years between us and Iraq, the puppet government gave us the boot and is buying wheat produced by subsidised American farmers). But I understand the need for domestic pork, all them Congresscritters from the mid-west have got to go back and face up to their electors don't they?
 
ya China's exploding with double digit GDP growth for the past ten years.

Problem is we are not, and we are cedeing ground, or possibly our place in the world, instead of the insults back and forth, lets get to laying out the pros and cons of such a policy or something...

You're heading for recession, watch the fed on this one.
 
None, long term gains and short term gains. China was a controlled economy and it's citizens some of the poorest. Then they promoted free trade and many other economic changes and now the citizens are much better off. Of course thier GDP will grow fast as they are coming from a communist economic plans to more free market. Our GDP is growing you said right? Until someone can give disprove comparitive advantage I'm not going to be concerned when other countries citizens are getting out of poverty at a fast pace. We may have a concern about our education system but that's another topic.

The fuck their citizens are better off. A very small number in coastal cities are a rich as fucking Croesus, meanwhile in the hinterland people are starving to death. They need a fucking revolution.
 
No, I've deferred to the 'experts' on economics, I do know a little through school, but economics wasn't my major, or minor, but given my major I took a few economics classes.

I've just been looking at the results of our 'experiment' on free trade and in some instances it's absolutely the correct policy, it just seems to lack, for less of a better word, a referee, judicial oversight, to make sure certain nations don't cheat the principles. Otherwise it's a race to the bottom. I believe in free trade, and in some instances, where Americans businesses have to compete with subsidized goods, tariffs, or small subsides as well.


I thought the WTO was the referee?
 
What's funny is watching liberals become neoconservative globalists once they realize how america can be ruined by putting it's people out of work. The 'hate america first' crowd can choose any party these days and feel equally at home.
 
Joseph Stiglits and the world bank


http://www.gregpalast.com/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold
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 disagree, and a pullout from dollars to Euros could be quick and painless. European banks would gladly take that money. And given the strategic consequences to the US, China's chief adversary to dominance in Asia, at the right time it's likely. Also consider China's cozy relationship with Iran, who could lead OPEC away from trading in the dollar as well, that's a serious threat to national security, and sadly no one is paying attention. Manufacturing got us out of the depression, what will get us out of this?

I have tried to be patient, but, OMG, you are fucking retarded.

If China can sell off their dollars without depreciating its value then we have absolutely nothing to worry about.
 
I have tried to be patient, but, OMG, you are fucking retarded.

If China can sell off their dollars without depreciating its value then we have absolutely nothing to worry about.

China will use all those dollars to buy american property RIGHT before the collapse.
 
Actually the onus is on you to explain how EFFICIENCY is the only valid value, when the world is more complex than that.

What values do you think government should be forcing on individuals through trade restrictions?

Government always restricts trade in a myriad of ways. Yes. Im saying limit trading partners to those with similar attitudes on human rights, to avoid driving american workers into slavery in a race to the bottom.

More emotional hyperbolic propoganda. I am about don with this. Speak in english, not some code that only your skinhead buddies understand.

You revert to this horseshit while you pretty much have conceded that trade creates efficiency.


You're the fascist, an internationalist one, who believes no entity on earth should have power over anything corporations wish to do.

Ooooh evil corporations. More bs propaganda and bogeymen.

I don't give a crap about corporations. If I want to buy a product from a foreigner, you have no fucking right to tell me I can't no matter what VALUE you claim should be most important.
 
What values do you think government should be forcing on individuals through trade restrictions?
No importing from slave labor nations or dictatorship. Trade should be conducted within already established bonds of a common conception of the rights of the individual.
More emotional hyperbolic propoganda. I am about don with this. Speak in english, not some code that only your skinhead buddies understand.

Go jack off a goat, ignorant cretinesque loser.

You revert to this horseshit while you pretty much have conceded that trade creates efficiency.




Ooooh evil corporations. More bs propaganda and bogeymen.

I don't give a crap about corporations. If I want to buy a product from a foreigner, you have no fucking right to tell me I can't no matter what VALUE you claim should be most important.

ANd no one has the right to tell you to stop smoking crack either.
 
Last edited:
China will use all those dollars to buy american property RIGHT before the collapse.

From??? Answer... Americans. So we'd get all of the dollars back. And this would not create a collapse as it would slowly happen through nornmal market operations. The attempt would also drive the price for American property through the roof and fail.

This is the same thing dumbass xenophobes said Japan was going to do. It never happened. They are always dreaming up some evil plot and projecting on others. Bunch of paranoid delusionals, which explains the constant reference to phantoms without any real explanation of what they are talking about. Jews and Chinese and Corporations! Oh my.

Quit pissing yourself faggot. Nobody is out to get you.

I am done with you psycho.
 
From??? Answer... Americans. So we'd get all of the dollars back. And this would not create a collapse as it would slowly happen through nornmal market operations. The attempt would also drive the price for American property through the roof and fail.
But They will then OWN the property. Then collapse the currency. Globalism is a way for all elites of the world to split ownership of the world amongst themselves, regarldess of the impact upon others.
This is the same thing dumbass xenophobes said Japan was going to do. It never happened. They are always dreaming up some evil plot and projecting on others. Bunch of paranoid delusionals, which explains the constant reference to phantoms without any real explanation of what they are talking about. Jews and Chinese and Corporations! Oh my.

Quit pissing yourself faggot. Nobody is out to get you.

I am done with you psycho.


Because you've lost, horribly. You've been reduced to a blithering cretinesque sloganeering fool.
 
the dollar is slipping...

Uhhh, yeah? What relevance does this have?

Does not mean that China can simply dump all of its dollars without further declining the dollar value and therefore the assets it holds. The point remains, it hurts China if the dollar's value goes to crap. A soft landing is in their interest.
 
Uhhh, yeah? What relevance does this have?

Does not mean that China can simply dump all of its dollars without further declining the dollar value and therefore the assets it holds. The point remains, it hurts China if the dollar's value goes to crap. A soft landing is in their interest.

Assets are a phantom. Control is key.
 
Back
Top