4 ms·

John Cabot, an ambassador in the 1950s, had a good quote: "The UN is meant to prevent you from going to hell, not take you to heaven." The IMF and the World B

by Top19 9y ago

John Cabot, an ambassador in the 1950s, had a good quote: "The UN is meant to prevent you from going to hell, not take you to heaven." The IMF and the World Bank were part of the world superstructure set up alongside the UN, so this quote applies to them. Can't speak about the World Bank, it might indeed really suck. The IMF is a good organization that tries. They've made some bad mistakes, but have learned from them. A good example of this was during the Southeast Financial Crisis that in 97-98 that toppled the Indonesian government and still to this day has left abandoned skyscrapers in Bangkok. At the beginning of the crisis the IMF had a policy against restricting investor access to banks, believing it was better to "let the market work". By the end of the crisis, after South Korea had fallen (fallen meaning they were out of foreign currency reserves), and Japan / Russia looked like it might be next, the IMF had changed positions and was fully committed to using international law to stop irrational investor panic. People forget HOW HUGE THIS WAS. There was a Time magazine cover at the time that literally read "The Committee to Save The World" with Greenspan, Summers, and Rubin on it. Interestingly, though this problem would later help usher in the Dot Com bubble. The regulatory agencies had to lower investor rates to calm investor nerves, even though other people were asking them to not too because of the increasingly worrying NASDAQ IPOs. https://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1999/1101990215_400.jpg https://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1999/11...

marcosdumay 9y ago
As a Brazilian that grew up on the 90's watching this situation unwind, I'd thank a lot the IMF for helping us. They really did do good at that time. But they seem to have changed their direction recently, and are really insisting on pushing money into unsustainable places. I don't get their new goals, they don't seem to have any stabilizing effects.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- derriz 9y ago
  I lived in a country that recently required IMF support, Ireland, and have a positive view of the IMF as a result. Of course, there were conditions attached to the loans but given that nobody else was willing to lend money to the state under any terms at all, it seemed fair enough. And the interest rate was nothing like "payday" rates. The alternative (a "cold turkey" end to government payments - e.g. no salaries for police, doctors, teachers, etc.) would have caused huge long term damage to society, the economy and would have undermined the legitimacy of the state. On a personal level, if I were lending money to a desperate down-and-out friend who had exhaused all the normal sources of credit including their family, I would probably also ask for lifestyle changes before giving them money.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    Their austerity rules are perfectly right, and are necessary for the country to grow and pay back the loan. But, specifically about Ireland, do you think you will ever pay your loans back? Looking from a distance I got the impression it's almost impossible, but you will certainly know it better.
    - stephen_g 9y ago
      Austerity can only reduce growth, if you look at how sectoral balances work. You only get growth while the Government is cutting when the private sector (in aggregate) is taking on enough new debt to account both for the cuts and for the growth. Ireland is damned if they do, damned if they don't though, given that they can't control their own currency, so they actually have a risk of default on their primary currency.
  - pm90 9y ago
    > On a personal level, if I were lending money to a desperate down-and-out friend who had exhaused all the normal sources of credit including their family, I would probably also ask for lifestyle changes before giving them money. While it might seem reasonable from a personal perspective, I don't think it really applies when you're considering an entire country (or any sovereign entity, for that matter). This mistake has been made before, and in many fields, so I don't blame you particularly (e.g. we think of personal indebtedness as "immoral" but deficit spending has largely been shown to be bountiful and a net positive when managed correctly). I'm personally not well versed in economics or genius enough to suggest alternatives, but I just wanted to point out that kind of fallacy when thinking about these things.
- neves 9y ago
  As a Brazilian that grew up on the 90's watching this situation unwind, I really hate the IMFs recessive policies that impoverished my country. Their austerity rules always increased our recessions. It always looked to me as just a instrument to maintain poor countries poor.
awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> The IMF and the World Bank were part of the world superstructure set up alongside the UN It is european colonization transformed into western neocolonization. It is the bretton woods international system set up after ww2 when the british empire ceded world leadership to the US and many of the european colonial powers ( british, dutch, french, etc ) joined the US in "collective" rule of the world rather than fighting each other for colonies. The era of direct european colonization led by the british empire was fraying and starting to collapse as the soviets, chinese, germans and the japanese all exploited and made inroads against european colonization around the world. So an era of "indirect" european/western neocolonization was created to replace the direct european colonization of the past 500 years or so. > A good example of this was during the Southeast Financial Crisis that in 97-98 that toppled the Indonesian government and still to this day has left abandoned skyscrapers in Bangkok. At the beginning of the crisis the IMF had a policy against restricting investor access to banks, believing it was better to "let the market work". Ah... The age old question, who/what caused the asian financial crisis... > the IMF had changed positions and was fully committed to using international law to stop irrational investor panic. Isn't it funny how every crisis, the FED and the IMF gets stronger and stronger. > People forget HOW HUGE THIS WAS. There was a Time magazine cover at the time that literally read "The Committee to Save The World" with Greenspan, Summers, and Rubin on it. I really wouldn't believe much from a propaganda outfit like TIME. > Interestingly, though this problem would later help usher in the Dot Com bubble. That's the idea. Build bubbles, cause panic, demand more control for printing more money and bailing out institutions/etc. Of course, they themselves cause the panics, but as I said, that's for another time. Essentially. The UN, IMF, World Bank are pillars of western neocolonialism. It's only naive people who expect "good" from these institutions. That would be as silly as an indian or a chinese expecting "good" from the british empire or the indonesians from the dutch empire or the filipinos from the spanish empire/american empire.

by Top19 9y ago

marcosdumay 9y ago

As a Brazilian that grew up on the 90's watching this situation unwind, I'd thank a lot the IMF for helping us. They really did do good at that time. But they seem to have changed their direction recently, and are really insisting on pushing money into unsustainable places. I don't get their new goals, they don't seem to have any stabilizing effects.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
derriz 9y ago
I lived in a country that recently required IMF support, Ireland, and have a positive view of the IMF as a result. Of course, there were conditions attached to the loans but given that nobody else was willing to lend money to the state under any terms at all, it seemed fair enough. And the interest rate was nothing like "payday" rates. The alternative (a "cold turkey" end to government payments - e.g. no salaries for police, doctors, teachers, etc.) would have caused huge long term damage to society, the economy and would have undermined the legitimacy of the state. On a personal level, if I were lending money to a desperate down-and-out friend who had exhaused all the normal sources of credit including their family, I would probably also ask for lifestyle changes before giving them money.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  Their austerity rules are perfectly right, and are necessary for the country to grow and pay back the loan. But, specifically about Ireland, do you think you will ever pay your loans back? Looking from a distance I got the impression it's almost impossible, but you will certainly know it better.
  - stephen_g 9y ago
    Austerity can only reduce growth, if you look at how sectoral balances work. You only get growth while the Government is cutting when the private sector (in aggregate) is taking on enough new debt to account both for the cuts and for the growth. Ireland is damned if they do, damned if they don't though, given that they can't control their own currency, so they actually have a risk of default on their primary currency.
- pm90 9y ago
  > On a personal level, if I were lending money to a desperate down-and-out friend who had exhaused all the normal sources of credit including their family, I would probably also ask for lifestyle changes before giving them money. While it might seem reasonable from a personal perspective, I don't think it really applies when you're considering an entire country (or any sovereign entity, for that matter). This mistake has been made before, and in many fields, so I don't blame you particularly (e.g. we think of personal indebtedness as "immoral" but deficit spending has largely been shown to be bountiful and a net positive when managed correctly). I'm personally not well versed in economics or genius enough to suggest alternatives, but I just wanted to point out that kind of fallacy when thinking about these things.
neves 9y ago
As a Brazilian that grew up on the 90's watching this situation unwind, I really hate the IMFs recessive policies that impoverished my country. Their austerity rules always increased our recessions. It always looked to me as just a instrument to maintain poor countries poor.

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago

> The IMF and the World Bank were part of the world superstructure set up alongside the UN It is european colonization transformed into western neocolonization. It is the bretton woods international system set up after ww2 when the british empire ceded world leadership to the US and many of the european colonial powers ( british, dutch, french, etc ) joined the US in "collective" rule of the world rather than fighting each other for colonies. The era of direct european colonization led by the british empire was fraying and starting to collapse as the soviets, chinese, germans and the japanese all exploited and made inroads against european colonization around the world. So an era of "indirect" european/western neocolonization was created to replace the direct european colonization of the past 500 years or so. > A good example of this was during the Southeast Financial Crisis that in 97-98 that toppled the Indonesian government and still to this day has left abandoned skyscrapers in Bangkok. At the beginning of the crisis the IMF had a policy against restricting investor access to banks, believing it was better to "let the market work". Ah... The age old question, who/what caused the asian financial crisis... > the IMF had changed positions and was fully committed to using international law to stop irrational investor panic. Isn't it funny how every crisis, the FED and the IMF gets stronger and stronger. > People forget HOW HUGE THIS WAS. There was a Time magazine cover at the time that literally read "The Committee to Save The World" with Greenspan, Summers, and Rubin on it. I really wouldn't believe much from a propaganda outfit like TIME. > Interestingly, though this problem would later help usher in the Dot Com bubble. That's the idea. Build bubbles, cause panic, demand more control for printing more money and bailing out institutions/etc. Of course, they themselves cause the panics, but as I said, that's for another time. Essentially. The UN, IMF, World Bank are pillars of western neocolonialism. It's only naive people who expect "good" from these institutions. That would be as silly as an indian or a chinese expecting "good" from the british empire or the indonesians from the dutch empire or the filipinos from the spanish empire/american empire.