Why everybody hates Hugo!

It's called the Washington Consensus! This is a great time to talk about neo-liberal economic policies that kill people all over the world. A global economic structure so cruel and inhumane that some people think it came from Hell! Hugo Chavez is threatening the evil thing. But they don't call it a consensus for nothing.
It is supported by ALL! I hope this clears up the mystery as to why EVERYBODY hates Hugo!


http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/washington.h...
Washington Consensus
The phrase “Washington Consensus” is today a very popular and often pilloried term in debates about trade and development. It is often seen as synonymous with “neoliberalism” and “globalization.” As the phrase’s originator, John Williamson, says: “Audiences the world over seem to believe that this signifies a set of neoliberal policies that have been imposed on hapless countries by the Washington-based international financial institutions and have led them to crisis and misery. There are people who cannot utter the term without foaming at the mouth.” <1>

Williamson originally coined the phrase in 1990 “to refer to the lowest common denominator of policy advice being addressed by the Washington-based institutions to Latin American countries as of 1989.” <2> These policies were:

Fiscal discipline
A redirection of public expenditure priorities toward fields offering both high economic returns and the potential to improve income distribution, such as primary health care, primary education, and infrastructure
Tax reform (to lower marginal rates and broaden the tax base)
Interest rate liberalization
A competitive exchange rate
Trade liberalization
Liberalization of inflows of foreign direct investment
Privatization
Deregulation (to abolish barriers to entry and exit)
Secure property rights
Since then, the phrase “Washington Consensus” has become a lightning rod for dissatisfaction amongst anti-globalization protestors, developing country politicians and officials, trade negotiators, and numerous others. It is often used interchangeably with the phrase “neoliberal policies.” But, as Williamson also states:

Some of the most vociferous of today's critics of what they call the Washington Consensus, most prominently Joe Stiglitz... do not object so much to the agenda laid out above as to the neoliberalism that they interpret the term as implying. I of course never intended my term to imply policies like capital account liberalization...monetarism, supply-side economics, or a minimal state (getting the state out of welfare provision and income redistribution), which I think of as the quintessentially neoliberal ideas. <1>

Clearly, the definition of the term has gone well beyond the control of Williamson and other economists. That is, if you believe it is useful to talk of a Washington Consensus. Moses Naim, the editor of Foreign Policy, has argued that no such consensus exists. Naim highlights the fact that economists are often divided over such issues as the East Asian crisis, the need for an international financial architecture, and the effectiveness of “open” trade policies. “If this sample represents the Washington Consensus, then just imagine what a Washington Confusion would be like,” he says. <3>

Some of today’s policy discussion, however, might still be understood by using the term as a reference point. For instance, Dani Rodrik argues that there now exists an “Augmented” Washington Consensus, which in addition to the items listed above, adds: <4>

Corporate governance
Anti-corruption
Flexible labor markets
WTO agreements
Financial codes and standards
“Prudent” capital-account opening
Non-intermediate exchange rate regimes
Independent central banks/inflation targeting
Social safety nets
Targeted poverty reduction
Clearly, the debate continues about the Washington Consensus, its definition, its successes and failures, and whether it even exists. As many of the Washington Consensus’ policy components – however it is defined – relate directly to trade policy, it is a debate worth following.

Last updated April 2003

http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/washington.h...

Here's Greg Palasts take on it.

Saturday, Sep 16, 2006
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1818
By: Greg Palast - The Progressive

You’d think George Bush would get down on his knees and kiss Hugo Chávez’s behind. Not only has Chávez delivered cheap oil to the Bronx and other poor communities in the United States. And not only did he offer to bring aid to the victims of Katrina. In my interview with the president of Venezuela on March 28, he made Bush the following astonishing offer: Chávez would drop the price of oil to $50 a barrel, “not too high, a fair price,” he said—a third less than the $75 a barrel for oil recently posted on the spot market. That would bring down the price at the pump by about a buck, from $3 to $2 a gallon.
But our President has basically told Chávez to take his cheaper oil and stick it up his pipeline. Before I explain why Bush has done so, let me explain why Chávez has the power to pull it off—and the method in the seeming madness of his “take-my-oil-please!” deal.

Venezuela, Chávez told me, has more oil than Saudi Arabia. A nutty boast? Not by a long shot. In fact, his surprising claim comes from a most surprising source: the U.S. Department of Energy. In an internal report, the DOE estimates that Venezuela has five times the Saudis’ reserves.

However, most of Venezuela’s mega-horde of crude is in the form of “extra-heavy” oil—liquid asphalt—which is ghastly expensive to pull up and refine. Oil has to sell above $30 a barrel to make the investment in extra-heavy oil worthwhile. A big dip in oil’s price—and, after all, oil cost only $18 a barrel six years ago—would bankrupt heavy-oil investors. Hence Chávez’s offer: Drop the price to $50—and keep it there. That would guarantee Venezuela’s investment in heavy oil.

But the ascendance of Venezuela within OPEC necessarily means the decline of the power of the House of Saud. And the Bush family wouldn’t like that one bit. It comes down to “petro-dollars.” When George W. ferried then-Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia around the Crawford ranch in a golf cart it wasn’t because America needs Arabian oil. The Saudis will always sell us their petroleum. What Bush needs is Saudi petro-dollars. Saudi Arabia has, over the past three decades, kindly recycled the cash sucked from the wallets of American SUV owners and sent much of the loot right back to New York to buy U.S. Treasury bills and other U.S. assets.

The Gulf potentates understand that in return for lending the U.S. Treasury the cash to fund George Bush’s $2 trillion rise in the nation’s debt, they receive protection in return. They lend us petro-dollars, we lend them the 82nd Airborne.

Chávez would put an end to all that. He’ll sell us oil relatively cheaply—but intends to keep the petro-dollars in Latin America. Recently, Chávez withdrew $20 billion from the U.S. Federal Reserve and, at the same time, lent or committed a like sum to Argentina, Ecuador, and other Latin American nations.

Chávez, notes The Wall Street Journal, has become a “tropical IMF.” And indeed, as the Venezuelan president told me, he wants to abolish the Washington-based International Monetary Fund, with its brutal free-market diktats, and replace it with an “International Humanitarian Fund,” an IHF, or more accurately, an International Hugo Fund. In addition, Chávez wants OPEC to officially recognize Venezuela as the cartel’s reserve leader, which neither the Saudis nor Bush will take kindly to.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1818

And here's Wikipedia's take on it...

Washington Consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Washington Consensus is a phrase initially coined in the early 1990s to describe a relatively specific set of ten economic policy prescriptions that were considered by the phrase's originator to constitute a "standard" reform package promoted for crisis-racked countries by Washington-based institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and US Treasury Department.

Subsequently, the term acquired a second, broader connotation, being widely applied, generally in a pejorative sense, to describe a less-precisely stipulated gamut of policies stated to be promulgated by so-called neoliberal economists (again, a term most often applied pejoratively) as a formula for promoting economic growth in many parts of Latin America and other parts of the world. In this sense, it is argued that the Washington Consensus policies propose to introduce various free market oriented economic reforms which are theoretically designed to make the target economy more like that of First World countries such as the United States.

The Washington Consensus is the target of sharp criticism by individuals and groups who argue that it is a way to open up less developed Latin American countries to investments from large multinational companies and their wealthy owners in advanced First World economies. As of 2006, several Latin American countries are led by socialist governments, some of which openly oppose the Washington Consensus. Critics frequently cite the Argentine economic crisis of 1999-2002 as the case in point of why the Washington Consensus policies are flawed, as they argue that Argentina had previously implemented most of the Washington Consensus policies as directed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

They ALL support it, they ALL defend it! It's called "The Washington Concensus" or "Globalization" Either way, it does one thing. It KILLS PEOPLE! GOD BLESS HUGO CHAVEZ!

Just ask Argentina:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/01/12argentina

ECONOMIC CRISIS ENDS AN ERA
Argentina: IMF show state revolts
After the International Monetary Fund refused to release more aid to Argentina (already struggling to service an external debt), the people of the country rose in protest. They rejected austerity measures, forced the resignation of the president and the suspension of debt payments. Since then there have been sequential presidents but no real end to the chaos.

By Carlos Gabetta

Argentina finally exploded, a classic collapse. Observers had been surprised at the national inertia, since this is a highly politicised and unionised country with a long tradition of struggle. In the past, its people had been willing to turn it upside down with far less excuse than in the present intolerable situation: 20% unemployment, 14m — out of a population of 37m — living below the poverty line, purchasing power almost halved in five years.

Yet until 19 December, when tens of thousands spontaneously took to the streets, they seemed spellbound, powerless to express their discontent. Remembering the violent military dictatorship of 1976-83, the debacle of the Falklands war in 1982 and the traumatic hyperinflation of 1989, they bowed to political blackmail, threats of a return to authoritarian rule and economic disaster. Meanwhile, the leaders continued to use the neoliberal economic model set up by the generals.

People remember that the generals’ illegal regime was responsible for the deaths of more than 30,000 people, but they often forget that it also presided over a sharp increase in external debt, from $8bn to $43bn, and the beginning of a downward spiral. That was when they started the preparatory phase of the adjustment plan, to meet the needs of the dirty war and national security. The prime movers were the military president, General Jorge Videla, the minister of the economy, Martinez de la Hoz, an IMF staff member, Dante Simone, and the president of the central bank, Domingo Cavallo (1).

Domingo Cavallo was called on by Peronist Carlos Menem to help crush hyperinflation in 1991. With the blessing of the international financial community, he masterminded an economic revolution including some of the most radical reforms in the continent. Obeying the Washington experts’ injunctions to the letter, he dismantled the public sector, dismissed hundreds of thousands of civil servants, privatised, liberalised the economy and foreign trade, and raised interest rates. He invented the system of convertibility, fixed parity between dollar and peso, which was to strangle exports.

The country was about to enter its fourth year of recession. Tens of thousands of firms had gone bankrupt and those still in business were under a severe technological handicap. By the time a centre-left president, Fernando de la Rua, was elected in October 1999, democracy was little more than a charade in this neoliberal show state, ruled by a government corrupt beyond belief. In March 2001, the parliament called on Cavallo to work miracles again; he was given special powers and in July the zero deficit law was passed. Among other measures, civil service salaries and some pensions were reduced by 13%; and the draft budget for 2002 proposed to cut spending by 18.6% — $9.2bn less than in 2001.

A will to live
But Argentines seem to have recovered their will to live. A mass uprising removed the hated minister of finance, followed by the government and the president himself, forced to resign on 20 December. It started with thousands of desperate men and women, most of them workers who had been unemployed for years without any social security or other means of support, raiding shops and supermarkets for food. The president responded with a ridiculous speech alleging that the protests had been organised by "enemies of the republic". The impoverished middle classes then joined in with cacerolazos (2) everywhere. Then, as spontaneously as the first demonstrators, they too took to the streets, converging on the Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires and government buildings in other towns.

In contrast to other uprisings, the Argentines have repudiated not only the economic model but also the ruling class and all the unions, with one or two exceptions including the dissident trade union confederation, Congreso de los Trabajadores Argentinos (CTA). In the past, demonstrators had always obeyed strike rules, marching in columns behind their union or party banners. This time, they came out simply as citizens. There were no banners, just the national flag. Even the Peronist drums were silent for the first time in more than 50 years. The few political leaders who tried to join the crowd were rejected as hundreds of demonstrators attempted to storm the Congress building.

A state of siege was declared, but the popular uprising had turned an economic crisis into a political and potentially an institutional one. It was the end of an era, one of those historic moments with incalculable consequences. Society was saying that it had had enough of universal corruption (3), of a ruling class that had been living in luxury for 25 years on the payroll of the big banks, multinationals and global power centres. The country may be the IMF’s prize acolyte, with 90% of its banks and 40% of its industry in the hands of international capital, but the result is a disaster.

Since the early 1970s Argentina’s external debt has increased from $7.6bn to $132bn (or even $155bn), and the $40bn that the state collected from privatisation went up in smoke. Unemployment has risen from 3% to 20%, the number of people in extreme poverty from 200,000 to 5m, those in poverty from 1m to 14m, illiteracy has increased from 2% to 12% and functional illiteracy from 5% to 32%. And the foreign investments of political and union leaders and industrialists now amount to $120bn. The neoliberal show state is a demonstration model of the scale of theft and its disastrous effects on society.

A last straw
Cavallo’s latest demand on 1 December was the last straw. Under international pressure to service the external debt — the country was supposed to repay $750m by the end of 2001 and more than $2bn by the end of January 2002— the government set a limit on individual withdrawals from banks. The measure was supposedly intended "to stem the haemorrhage of capital": Argentines were not to take out more than $250 a week in cash, although more than $15bn had been taken out of the country by the big national and international speculators (4).

The system therefore is supported in the last resort by small and medium savers, and Argentine businessmen and industrialists, who are now prevented from disposing of their assets as they wish and who live in fear that devaluation will wipe out their savings. The banks took advantage of their desperate plight to make more money by charging 40% on credit card transactions in pesos and 29% on transactions in dollars, and were set to increase these rates (5). Millions of people are already facing poverty and this would have left further millions of middle class people without resources

The outcome of the revolt was 31 killed by the police, thousands of shops looted, parts of major cities laid waste, and the state with no one at the helm (6). After four days of frantic debate Congress — an assortment of crooks, with a few honourable exceptions — invited Adolfo Rodriguez Saa, the governor of the province of San Luis, to serve until power was handed over to a new president to be elected by ballot on 3 March (7).

Will the ruling class show some sense of self-preservation and approach the situation rationally, setting aside political divisions, personal ambitions and conflicts of interest, at least for the time? They will not have an easy task. The economy is in ruins and the people are in desperate need, as the uprising has shown. For years, the political leaders have denied that the liberal model is in crisis. Now they will have to pick up the pieces in the worst circumstances, since Cavallo has drawn on the currency reserves to service the external debt and they are almost exhausted (8).

Rodriguez Saa announced strong social measures and officially declared that payment of the debt is suspended pending renegotiation with the creditors. He promised to create a new currency to try to revive the economy. He has also said he will not devalue the peso — a move feared by Argentine citizens and businessmen who have huge dollar debts. However, parity is now no more than a dream, since the banks no longer sell US dollars and a dollar fetches two pesos on the street.

The political and parliamentary crisis has delayed reactions to the social problems and there are fears that anarchy may follow. To prevent this, the new government will have to choose between the customary course of giving priority to the multinationals or enduring a further popular uprising. Some observers see a disturbing similarity between the present situation and the great depression of the 1930s, the Weimar republic, and all that followed. This may be going too far. But the comparison seems apt when we consider the recent history of Argentina — the defeat in the Falklands, the years of frustration, the discrediting of elected representatives, the loss of confidence in institutions, a world crisis. Against such a background, how can we discount the idea that the power vacuum may lead to an authoritarian outcome or tempt an adventurer

http://mondediplo.com/2002/01/12argentina

to the good.

1. The citizens revolt included an alliance of the poor and middle classes, who went round with tiny hammers and broke every ATM display window in the country--to show their outrage at the collusive banks. Eventually, this citizen cooperation and consensus led to election of a leftist government which pledged to free Argentina of World Bank debt and onerous IMF policies, and never to get Argentina into that position again. Good-bye, neo-liberalism (and "Washington Consensus")!

2. Hugo Chavez helped bail them out--bought up about a third of their debt on easy terms. Argentina is now FREE OF THE WORLD BANK!

3. Argentina and Brazil (due largely to the stabilization of things in Argentina) are now engaged in talks on a common currency (like the euro)--to get off the US dollar.

Argentina has joined the ranks of the huge leftist (majorityist) revolution that has swept South America--with leftist governments elected in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Venezuela and Bolivia, and strong leftist movements in Peru and Ecuador (Ecuador will go "blue" this year; and Peru will go "blue" after the current corporatist government destroys Peru's economy, a la Argentina). The common themes of these governments are national and regional self-determination, Latin American mutual aid and development, and rejection of Neo-liberalism, the World Bank/IMF/US policy and domination (as well as a determination never to let heinous US-backed dictatorships get installed in their countries again).

All of these countries are beginning to thrive--under truly representative governments--and, what is more, people are taking pride in their self-sufficiency and in equity and justice for the vast populations of the poor and the brown who have been so oppressed and even brutalized. Another hallmark of this populist movement is hatred for the murderous U.S. "war on drugs."

"Neo-liberalism" amounted to a looting expedition by international banks, and by the US-based and other global corporate predators. Whatever lofty crap these greedmongers sold to the crooks formerly in charge of these governments--promises of prosperity for all with "free trade," "lifting all boats," etc. etc.--never was intended and never happened. What happened is best summed in Bolivia, where Bechtel Corp. privatized the water in one Bolivian city, and then jacked up the prices to the poorest of the poor--even charging poor peasants for collecting rainwater!

That's "Neo-liberalism." The rich get richer and everybody else can go to Hell.

The Bolivians--like the Argentinians--rose up in rebellion, and threw Bechtel out of their country. They then elected their first indigenous president, socialist Evo Morales. And he has said it all: "The time of the people has come."

All over South America, and now in Mexico, too. "The time of the people has come."

It is an unstoppable tide. It is the future.

Now they are looting US, the American people. Look at your credit card lately? Mine got up to 29% APR before I was able to get out from under the debt. That is the kind of looting they were doing to the Argentinians. We are now the "Banana Republic" of the hemisphere. We who gave these bastards their start--with our infrastructure (paid for by the middle class), our well-educated and highly productive and loyal work force, our relatively clean legal system and banking structure (until they looted our S&Ls under Reagan), and our natural resources. Now they are coming after us--as the rest of the people in the world wake up and get themselves organized against US-based and other corporate predators. And the Bush Junta--like the dirty brutal governments we inflicted on the Latin Americans in the past--is facilitating this massive looting of the American people (with gas gouging, a $10 TRILLION debt--for their corporate oil war and multiple tax cuts for the super-rich--and sweet little items like the bankruptcy bill, as well as plans to loot Social Security and all social benefit programs).

---------------------------------

Throw Diebold, ES&S and all election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

How? By MASSIVE Absentee Ballot voting this fall! That's OUR revolt--our "tiny hammers" a la Argentina! These Bushite corporate-controlled electronic voting machines are putting a 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" in our elections for Bushites, warmongers and corporatists, with the collusion of the Corporate Democrats.

Bust the Machines--Vote by Absentee Ballot!

If everyone who despises the Bush Junta (60% to 70%) votes by Absentee Ballot, the reign of these diabolical machines will be OVER.

Then we can deal with the Corporate Democrats who sold away our right to vote.

:dem:

East Asian financial crisis 1997
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_financial_crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Asian financial crisis)
Jump to: navigation, search
The East Asian financial crisis was a financial crisis that started in July 1997 in Thailand and affected currencies, stock markets, and other asset prices in several Asian countries, many considered East Asian Tigers. It is also commonly referred to as the East Asian currency crisis or locally as the IMF crisis although the latter is somewhat controversial.

Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand were the countries most affected by the crisis. Hong Kong, Malaysia, Laos and the Philippines were also hit by the slump. Mainland China, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam were relatively unaffected. Japan was not affected much by this crisis but was going through its own long-term economic difficulties. However, all nations mentioned above saw their currencies dip significantly relative to the US dollar, though the harder hit nations saw extended currency losses.

Though called the "East Asian" crisis because it originated in East Asia, its effects rippled throughout the globe and caused a global financial crisis, with major effects felt as widely as Russia, Brazil, as investors lost confidence in emerging markets. United States as an investor was briefly affected.


History and causes
Until 1997, Asia attracted almost half of total capital inflow to developing countries. The economies of Southeast Asia in particular maintained high interest rates attractive to foreign investors looking for a high rate of return. As a result the region's economies received a large inflow of hot money and experienced a dramatic run-up in asset prices. At the same time, the regional economies of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and South Korea experienced high, 8-12% GDP growth rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This achievement was broadly acclaimed by economic institutions including the IMF and World Bank, and was known as part of the Asian economic miracle.

Whatever the disputed causes, the Asian crisis started in mid-1997 and affected currencies, stock markets, and other asset prices of several Southeast Asian economies. Triggered by events in Latin America, particularly after the Mexican peso crisis of 1994, Western investors lost confidence in securities in East Asia and began to pull money out, creating a domino effect.

In 1994, Princeton University (then MIT) economist Paul Krugman published an article attacking the idea of an Asian economic miracle. <1> He argued that East Asia's economic growth had historically been the result of capital investment, leading to growth in productivity. However, total factor productivity had increased only marginally or not at all. Krugman argued that only growth in total factor productivity, and not capital investment, could lead to long-term prosperity. Krugman would be seen by many as prescient after the financial crisis became full-blown, though he himself stated that he had not predicted the crisis or foreseen its depth.

At the time Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea had large private current account deficits and the maintenance of pegged exchange rates encouraged external borrowing and led to excessive exposure to foreign exchange risk in both the financial and corporate sectors. In the mid-1990s, two factors began to change their economic environment. As the U.S. economy recovered from a recession in the early 1990s, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank under Alan Greenspan began to raise U.S. interest rates to head off inflation. This made the U.S. a more attractive investment destination relative to Southeast Asia, which had attracted hot money flows through high short-term interest rates, and raised the value of the U.S. dollar, to which many Southeast Asian nations' currencies were pegged, thus making their exports less competitive. At the same time, Southeast Asia's export growth slowed dramatically in the spring of 1996, deteriorating their current account position.

Some economists have advanced the impact of Mainland China on the real economy as a contributing factor to their ASEAN nations' export growth slowdown, though these economists maintain the main cause of the crises was excessive real estate speculation. China had begun to compete effectively with other Asian exporters particularly in the 1990s after the implementation of a number of export-oriented reforms. Most importantly, the Thai and Indonesian currencies were closely tied to the dollar, which was appreciating in the 1990s. Western importers sought cheaper manufacturers and found them, indeed, in China whose currency was depreciated relative to the dollar. Other economists dispute this claim noting that both ASEAN and China experienced simultaneous rapid export growth in the early 1990s.

Many economists, like those within the Cato Institute, believed that the Asian crisis was created not by market psychology or technology (which actually represents a more efficient form of capitalism through the ability to acquire information cheaply and more quickly) but by macroeconomic policies that distorted information which in turn created the volatility that attracted speculators. What some have called "herd mentality" was merely the result of speculators behaving rationally, noting the currency policies (The government defending the fixed exchange rate) which speculators assumed could not be sustained. Such economists believe that this crisis was the result of unsustainable macroeconomic/protectionist policies which create the very "market" imperfections they were originally designed to correct.

Other economists, including Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs, have downplayed the role of the real economy in the crisis compared to the financial markets due to the speed of the crisis. The rapidity with which the crisis happened has prompted Sachs and others to compare it to a classic bank run prompted by a sudden risk shock. Sachs points to strict monetary and contractory fiscal policies implemented by the governments at the advice of the IMF in the wake of the crisis, while Frederic Mishkin points to the role of asymmetric information in the financial markets that led to a "herd mentality" among investors that magnified a relatively small risk in the real economy. The crisis has thus attracted interest from behavioral economists interested in market psychology.

The foreign ministers of the 10 ASEAN countries believed that the well co-ordinated manipulation of currencies was a deliberate attempt to destabilise the ASEAN economies. Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad accused currency speculator George Soros of ruining Malaysia's economy with massive currency speculation. At the 30th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting held in Subang Jaya, Malaysia, they issued a joint declaration on 25 July 1997 expressing serious concern and called for further intensification of ASEAN's cooperation to safeguard and promote ASEAN's interest in this regard.<2> Coincidentally, on that same day, the Central Bankers of most of the affected countries were at the EMEAP (Executive Meeting of East Asia Pacific) meeting in Shanghai, and they failed to make the New Arrangement to Borrow operational. A year earlier, the finance ministers of these same countries had attended the 3rd APEC finance ministers meeting in Kyoto, Japan on 17 March 1996, and according to that joint declaration, they had been unable to double the amounts available under the General Agreement to Borrow and the Emergency Finance Mechanism. As such, the crisis could be seen as the failure to adequately build capacity in time, to prevent currency manipulation.


IMF and controversy
The neutrality of this article is disputed.

The role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was very controversial during the crisis, causing many locals to call the crisis the "IMF crisis." To begin with, many commentators in retrospect criticized the IMF for encouraging the developing economies of Asia down the path of "fast track capitalism", meaning liberalization of the financial sector (i.e. elimination of restrictions on capital flows); maintenance of high domestic interest rates in order to suck in portfolio investment and bank capital; and pegging of the national currency to the dollar to reassure foreign investors against currency risk. <3>.

However, the greatest criticism of the IMF's role in the crisis was targeted towards its response. As country after country fell into crisis, many local businesses and governments that had taken out loans in US dollars, which suddenly became much more expensive relative to the local currency which formed their earned income, found themselves unable to pay their creditors. The dynamics in this scenario were similar to that of the Latin American debt crisis.

In response, the IMF offered to step in the case of each nation and offer it a multi-billion dollar "rescue package" to enable these nations to avoid default. However, the IMF's support was conditional on a series of drastic economic reforms influenced by neoliberal economic principles called a structural adjustment package (SAP). The SAP's called on crisis nations to cut government spending to reduce deficits, allow insolvent banks and financial institutions to fail, and aggressively raise interest rates. The reasoning was that these steps would restore confidence in the nations' fiscal solvency, penalize insolvent companies, and protect currency values. However, the effects of the SAP's were mixed and their impact controversial. Critics, however, noted the contractionary nature of these policies, arguing that in a recession, the traditional Keynesian response is to increase government spending, prop up major companies, and lower interest rates. The reasoning was that by stimulating the economy and staving off recession, governments could restore confidence while preventing economic pain. They pointed out that the U.S. government pursued expansionary policies, such as lowering interest rates, increasing government spending, and cutting taxes, when the U.S. itself entered a recession in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_financial_crisis

IMF Occupies Iraq, Riots Follow
By Matthew Rothschild
January 3, 2006
http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx010306

Bad enough that the U.S. military is occupying Iraq.
Now the IMF is occupying the country.

In December, the International Monetary Fund, in exchange for giving a loan of $685 million to the Iraqi government, insisted that the Iraqis lift subsidies on the price of oil and open the economy to more private investment.

As the IMF said in a press release of December 23, the Iraqi government must be committed to “controlling the wage and pensions bill, reducing subsidies on petroleum products, and expanding the participation of the private sector in the domestic market for petroleum products.”

The impact of the IMF extortion was swift and brutal.

“Since the Dec. 15 parliamentary election, fuel prices have increased five-fold, mostly because the outgoing government of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari has cut subsidies as part of a debt-forgiveness deal it signed with the International Monetary Fund,” the Los Angeles Times reported on December 28.

“The move has shocked Iraqis long accustomed to hefty subsidies of gasoline, kerosene, cooking gas, and other fuels.”

Iraqis are getting a nasty taste of the IMF’s medicine. “Over the summer, gas was selling for about five cents a gallon,” the LA Times noted. “Now it’s about 65 cents, and at the end of the price increases, gasoline will cost about the same in Iraq as it does in other countries in the Persian Gulf, about $1 per gallon. The prices of kerosene, diesel, and cooking gas have seen similar or steeper increases.” The price of public transportation has also gone up significantly.

Not surprisingly, these enormous price hikes have led to riots around the country, with police firing on 3,000 protesters in Nassiryeh, according to an account on Daily Kos. www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/20/11119/029,
Iraq’s oil minister quit to protest the government’s capitulation to the IMF. According to Daily Kos, Oil Minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum asked, “Is this how we repay the Iraq citizens who risked their lives to participate in the elections, by raising fuel prices in this way?”

The indestructible Ahmad Chalabi, a longtime favorite of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, replaced al-Uloum.
The Bush Administration is four-square behind the IMF deal.

“This arrangement will underpin economic stability and help lay the foundation for an open and prosperous economy in Iraq,” said U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow.

What it is actually underpinning is economic instability. “It’s crazy, socially and politically,” Robert Mabro, former chairman of the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, told the LA Times.

Even the Pentagon’s “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” recognized the need for “balancing the need for economic reform—particularly of bloated fuel and food subsidies—with political realities.”

But “political realities” on the ground—such as inciting riots and increasing discontent—don’t appear to concern Bush.

For the Bush Administration, the endorsement of the IMF price increase represents a schizophrenia that’s almost clinical.

Bush is desperate to rescue his floundering Iraq policy, and yet backing the IMF plan is like throwing a drowning patient both ends of a lifeline.

The Iraqi people are sick and tired of the U.S. occupation already, to put it mildly.

Now that they are seeing their standard of living plummet, thanks to the IMF, they are going to be even more irate at the United States, which they know controls the IMF.

Caught between deciding whether to try to win hearts and minds or whether to cling to free market fantasies, Bush has once again chosen to live in fantasyland.


http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx010306

One of my favorites.

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

World Bank Profits From Poor Countries - Report
Anil Netto

SINGAPORE, Sep 19 (IPS) - The World Bank receives more from developing countries than what it disburses to them says a new report released Tuesday as finance ministers endorsed a controversial new Bank plan to tackle corruption in developing countries.

The Social Watch Report 2006, released here at the annual meetings of the Bank group and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), stressed the need to reform the current international financial structure. Net transfers (disbursements minus repayments minus interest payments) to developing countries from the Bank and the International Bank for Reconstruction (IBRD), have been negative every year since 1991, the report pointed out.

The IBRD is now not making any contribution to development finance other than providing funds to service its outstanding claims. The International Development Association (IDA), which provides interest-free credits and grants to the poorest developing countries to boost their economic growth, is the only source of net financing from the Bank.

But these disbursements amount to only 4-5 billion US dollars a year. Taken together, the contribution of the Bank to the external financing of developing countries is negative by some 1.2 billion dollars, thus ‘‘failing to fulfil the purpose of its mission'', said Social Watch, an international network of over 400 citizens' organisations in 60 countries monitoring commitments to eradicate poverty.

Meanwhile, critics say the Bank has embarked on a public relations offensive using the good governance and poverty eradication rhetoric to mask its unpopular neo-liberal agenda of ‘deregulation', privatisation, and removal of government subsidies for essential services.


http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34780

Post away! It's nice to clear up the confusion. I feel so much better.

the military industrial complex is alive and well in the consensus.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8494.htm

Why We Fight

Here's a snip from Chavez' speech:

"The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination."

Entire speech here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15041.htm

I wonder how many actually read or heard the speech in it's entirety and analyzed anything other than the comments geared towards Herr Bush?

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200609/20060922_transcript.html

Tavis: The first question of this conversation I think has to be your comment calling President Bush the devil. There are some who have labeled your speech at the U.N. just days ago the most undiplomatic speech ever given at the U.N. To the American public, clarify or share with us why you chose to call George Bush the devil.

Chavez: Thank you very much for your question. Allow me to make the following comment. In order to come here, some considered my speech undiplomatic. How diplomatic is it to bombard cities? Is it diplomatic to command the killing of thousands of innocent people? I think today some stirred or smiled when I say what I said. I think it was rather a humoristic speech and caused no damage, no aggression. I said I smelled sulfur here. I think people were having a good time. They were smiling.

Now let's go to the bottom of the issue. Is it not a devilish action to order the invasion of a country? Lying to your own citizens? Throwing high-position bombs and highly destructive bombs against houses filled with people? Against entire peoples? You see, it is really an act of devils to use weapons of mass destruction, to use chemical weapons, against entire cities, poisoning the air, poisoning the water. In Fallujah, even the birds died. Cockroaches died. All traces of life disappeared in Fallujah. That's an act of devils.

My words are worth nothing. What matters is the truth and my words only reflect reality. It is nothing personal. It is something coming from ethics and morality. My words are just a cry, a scream, a clamor for justice, for reflection on the citizens that cannot support gross actions conducted by President Bush.

<snip>

Chavez: Well, that's a perspective. That's a point of view. It's very confusing that what you have said has some value, I might also say. There are words, in this case, one word that says very clearly what we can say with a thousand words and perhaps because it is a strong word, and it is indeed, it might move the consciousness of the people, of some people. But from my perspective, they're a little bit sleepy. They're sleeping.

They are not realizing what is going on or they are confounded and the United States president is supported by a powerful media mechanism or equipment power. It even manipulates in some religious ideas. He said, one, that he was the mandate of God. He considers himself a God and that's a terrible manipulation since this is obeying the interests that are against God. I think he considers himself like God. When I call him devil, it's just to strike a balance.

to hate Hillary. It's someone who doesn't know their place. Imagine women thinking they could be President, or that a working class dude turned soldier could actually become the President of his country and criticize the President of the country who tried to get you assassinated. Imagine.

He's not quite there yet, but Communism gives me the creeps. Chavez is flirting with it like a hooker does a drunken sailor.

of Caracas, who wanted to confiscate two country clubs/golf courses for low cost housing (a critical need in Caracas), because it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Venezuelan Constitution protects private property.

That's real "communistic."

Get informed, cigsandcoffee. Try to read something other than the Wall Street Journal (--or, if your comment is any guide to your reading habits--the John Birch Society newsletter). www.venezuelanalysis.com is a good place to start--pro-Chavez, but also very informative and well written, with a variety of viewpoints, and not averse to publishing honest negative news on Chavez.

Chavez is NOT "flirting with communism." He favors a mixed capitalist/socialist economy, with a strong component of social justice. Fair taxation of the oil giants and the rich. Stimulus to small business. And help for the vast population of the poor and brown--never before served by government, and neglected and oppressed, often brutally--with schools, literacy programs, community centers, and small business loans and grants.

Chavez's diplomacy with Cuba, and friendship with Castro, is normal behavior for a Latin American government that is seeing to its own interests and making INDEPENDENT judgments (independent of the US) about its foreign relations. Cuba is a Latin country, with a revolutionary history that many in Latin America admire. None of these countries desire communism. But it doesn't bother them, and they do see its benefits. And they have a mutual culture with Cuba. This relationship (between Cuba and Venezuela, and between Cuba and other Latin countries) is no more odd or abnormal than the U.S. relationship with England (with whom we have a violent revolutionary history), or with Canada, France or Germany, all of which have strong socialist elements to their economies. OUR view of Cuba is colored by our Corporate Rulers' demonization of Cuba and Castro. But Castro was no more violent than George Washington was! He's no democrat, but he's not a fiend either. There ARE restrictions on freedom in Cuba, but there are NOT any such restrictions in Venezuela (or other Latin countries with leftist governments--most of them). The press freely criticizes Chavez in Venezuela. In fact, they revile him daily, and even openly supported the violent military coup attempt against him--and neither Chavez nor his government has taken ANY retaliatory action. Finally--and foremost--Chavez and his government (it's not just Chavez, it's a whole lot of intelligent, skilled people and reformers)--have been repeatedly elected to office, in the most vigorously monitored elections in history. They are the genuinely elected representatives of the great majority of Venezuelans. NOTHING is being imposed on Venezuelans against their will. The majority that has come to power there, at last--through TRANSPARENT elections--has actually been amazingly mild in its programs and in its attitude toward the rich, under severe provocation (an attempted coup, a crippling oil professionals' strike, and a US-funded recall election against Chavez (which Chavez won handily)). All the majority seem to want is FAIRNESS--and a chance to rightfully participate in their country's political process.

These things are so threatening to the Bushites and Corporatists who rule over us, that they have somehow convinced you that this is "communism." It is not. It is democracy. But some us hardly recognize it any more, sad to say.

Bravo to you!

"Groupthink"

:kick:

:thumbsup:

while we pay $3. That isn't fair.


I actually heard some idiot at a gas station say that.

and their fawning totally out of touch msm

That's a problem.

however power can only rule so long as the people support it short of a soviet type dictatorship. when those in power lose touch with the majority they are in grave danger and that is what i believe is what is happening.

Some moron kept calling Chavez a "dictator" and "tyrant." The guy he was debating with never called him on it. Not once.

This is what passes for debate in this country. So CNN pretty much says Chavez is a dictator and tyrant.

I'm dumber for having watched.

he is NOT as hated as BushCo is...that's for sure...

in the US media.

If that can past muster, anything can.

The Roaring Nineties: A New History of the World's Most Prosperous Decade by Joseph E. Stiglitz http://www.amazon.com/Roaring-Nineties-History-Prosperous-Decade/dp/0393326187/sr=8-1/qid=1159052757/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7593254-8792836?ie=UTF8&s=books

Hugo Chavez and The Bolivarian Revolution: The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela - by Richard Gott http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1844675335&id=dibXGgdZJagC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=%27washington+consensus%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=79I34thMpt_o0q3zeaNvz6DMJOI

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/sr=1-1/qid=1159053070/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7593254-8792836?ie=UTF8&s=books

Globalization and Its Discontents by Joseph E. Stiglitz http://www.amazon.com/Globalization-Its-Discontents-Joseph-Stiglitz/dp/0393324397/sr=1-1/qid=1159053248/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7593254-8792836?ie=UTF8&s=books

and I don't think it's right to blame a hurricaine. Its just doing what it does. Oh Hugo Chavez?


Nevermind.

Thanks to all on this thread for the great research. K&R.

This so called "Washington Consensus" is 180 degrees apart from what the national consensus was from the 1930s to the 1970s.

Why do I find it ironic that Hugo Chavez is more American than the creepoids running this country nowadays?

and the "moral majority". They then corrupted the World Bank and the IMF! They took they're evil economics global and now the world hates are guts.

we are exporting Democracy!

Without actually meaning to.