GoddamVegetarianCommie
8th August 2016, 18:18
I'm new here so sorry if this is the wrong forum.
The International Monetary Fund often pushes neoliberal policies such as free trade, ending subsidies, limited social spending and capital market liberalization onto developing countries at times when such policies are inappropriate, which can often lead to local producers/banks being crushed by (often highly subsidised) foreign competition (and the people who lose their jobs as a result are not protected by any kind of safety net). This clearly does not help those developing countries, but it often does further the interests of western (particularly American) companies.
Given that as we know declassified US planning documents show a pretty frank commitment to controlling the world's resources (" We know have 6% of the world's population and roughly half its wealth...to retain this position of inequity we must..."etc), that the US is the only country with a veto in the IMF, given the US's track record of military intervention/regime change against governments that reject IMF loans and free trade (e.g. Indonesia), and given the fact that the US continues to protect and subsidise its own industry it could be said that the IMF is simply a tool for US imperialism, and its proposals are entirely cynical.
On the other hand, people such as Joseph Stiglitz have argued that the IMF's insistence on neoliberal policies even where they are inappropriate is based on a dogmatic belief that leaving everything to market forces will leave everyone better off, and not a conscious effort to screw other countries over.
Which do you think is correct, or are they both true to some extent?
(Incidentally this applies to domestic free market policies too; do governments really cut business regulations, reduce social spending etc just to help their billionaire mates or do they genuinely believe this is the right thing to do for everyone? I would argue the former, since neoliberal governments often continue to subsidise certain companies, often the arms industry)
The International Monetary Fund often pushes neoliberal policies such as free trade, ending subsidies, limited social spending and capital market liberalization onto developing countries at times when such policies are inappropriate, which can often lead to local producers/banks being crushed by (often highly subsidised) foreign competition (and the people who lose their jobs as a result are not protected by any kind of safety net). This clearly does not help those developing countries, but it often does further the interests of western (particularly American) companies.
Given that as we know declassified US planning documents show a pretty frank commitment to controlling the world's resources (" We know have 6% of the world's population and roughly half its wealth...to retain this position of inequity we must..."etc), that the US is the only country with a veto in the IMF, given the US's track record of military intervention/regime change against governments that reject IMF loans and free trade (e.g. Indonesia), and given the fact that the US continues to protect and subsidise its own industry it could be said that the IMF is simply a tool for US imperialism, and its proposals are entirely cynical.
On the other hand, people such as Joseph Stiglitz have argued that the IMF's insistence on neoliberal policies even where they are inappropriate is based on a dogmatic belief that leaving everything to market forces will leave everyone better off, and not a conscious effort to screw other countries over.
Which do you think is correct, or are they both true to some extent?
(Incidentally this applies to domestic free market policies too; do governments really cut business regulations, reduce social spending etc just to help their billionaire mates or do they genuinely believe this is the right thing to do for everyone? I would argue the former, since neoliberal governments often continue to subsidise certain companies, often the arms industry)