How the U.$. Uses Globalization to Cheat

[Commie Girl]

Confessions of an Economic Hitman


Our next guest says he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries in Latin America and around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then taking over their economies. From 1971 to 1981 John Perkins worked for the international consulting firm, Chas Main. He described himself an “economic hitman.” He has written a memoir called Confessions of an Economic Hitman. When he joined us in our firehouse studio, I asked him to begin with how he came to be recruited first by the National Security Agency, far larger than the C.I.A., and then this so-called international consulting firm of Chas T. Main.

Story (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/17/1420232&mode=thread&tid=25)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 20 2005, 03:04 PM
Confessions of an Economic Hitman


Our next guest says he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries in Latin America and around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then taking over their economies.
That's their fault for accepting it. Would you accept a loan you couldn't pay off ?

[Publius]

Read and own the book.

Tell me, if globalization is so bad, why the globalized like it?

Link: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/185topline.pdf

[Publius]

The book said more to me about the dangers of corrupt government than of global capitalism.

Government was the real villain of the book.

Do you want to read a real book on globalization or continue to wallow in ignorance?

Read:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019...5143385-3179250 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195170253/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-5143385-3179250)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/030...5143385-3179250 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300102526/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-5143385-3179250)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1930865473/ref=pd_sxp_f/002-5143385-3179250?v=glance&s=books)

[Publius]

So you don't think such set ups are morally reprehensible?

It is precisely their [neoliberal] policies that cause such necessity in third world countries.

Basically you're saying it's okay for me to live in someone else's house against the will of the owners, take all their food, money, exploit them and make them starve. And when they need to pay off their mortgage and don't have the money because I took it from them, I offer them a loan they have no alternative but to accept. And since they can't pay me back, I take over their house again.

When someone doesn't have a problem with this, I don't think any further discussion is worth the time or the energy.

It's a neo-liberal policy to have a world government run bank piss away money to 3rd world kleptocrats?

Right...

[Publius]

Hey Pubis,

If you can't keep up with the conversation, it's better not to jump in at all.

The whole point of this thread is that neoliberals set up foreign aid to take over needy economies.

And my point is that these people aren't 'neo-liberals' at all, but statists.

Have fun skewering strawmen, I'm out.

[Publius]

And these "statists" we're talking about are the world's leading enforcers of neoliberalism.

These libertarians have this annoying tendency of either changing their tune, or chasing their own tail.

A statist canont persue a neo-liberal policy.

It's a contradiction.

They may call themselves trade liberalists, but they're not.

You're probably the type of person that thinks NAFTA is 'free-trade' right?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:10 PM
So you don't think such set ups are morally reprehensible?

Yes. But morality isn't any concern of yours.


Basically you're saying it's okay for me to live in someone else's house against the will of the owners, take all their food, money, exploit them and make them starve.

Of course it is. Property is theft. If I don't have a house/food/money, it's because those who do have these things must have stolen them from me.

You will need to be re-educated after the revolution, my friend.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:56 PM
You're probably the type of person that thinks NAFTA is 'free-trade' right?
And don't forget the WTO !

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 20 2005, 04:45 PM
That's their fault for accepting it. Would you accept a loan you couldn't pay off ?
If it would keep people alive then yes.

[Publius]

That's their fault for accepting it. Would you accept a loan you couldn't pay off ?

Since most of these leaders were inept kleptocrats who had no intention of paying anything off, SURE!

[Publius]

Would you say then that most capitalist powers are not neoliberals, nor promulgate neoliberalist policies?

Most policies are a clusterfuck if neoliberal newspeak, paleoisolationist 'protecting jobs at home' doublespeek, and a healthy dose of political favoritism, pandering, and the usual arrogant incompetance that comes with the territory.

There are surely some 'neoliberals' involved, but the policies most actively promoted are not liberal (Leave people alone) but statist (Tell people what to do. "Sell this much here" for example).



What is NAFTA to you? Do you support it? What about the FTA?

NAFTA, to me, is the afformentioned clusterfuck.

I don't support it. I support free trade.

Any free-trade 'agreement' should be 1 page in length, possibly consisting of only the sentance:

" ____________ (country) agrees not to interfere in any way (Other than in issues of legality), with the trade between _______________ and ____________, signed _____________________"

not 10,000 pages, as is NAFTA, stacked with quotas, directives, regulations and restrictions.

10,000 pages of anything is not free.



In other words, provide an argument people can work with instead of one-liners.

Free trade.

You know what freedom is, you know what trade is. Put them together.



You're just playing semantics here. Didn't Nixon "plan out" the economic framework of Chile by handing it over to neoliberal policies? So Nixons' ACT OF WILL and ENFORCEMENT towards neoliberalism does not make him a neoliberal? Really??

I'm not going to defend a murderous dictator like Pinochet, but I will merely mention Chile underwent an economic miracle since the revolution.

And I don't really agree with overthrowing foreign governments at all, though that may have been a necessary case.

I'm not really studied enough on it to say.

And Nixon was most certainly not a ;neoliberal;, though he was not horribly bad.

[Andy Bowden]

"since the revolution"? Don't you mean since the coup?

[OleMarxco]

Won't be a coup since a coup implies a small group of people, a minority, taking over power from the majority, like an apartheid...but...how the hell can it be a coup if it's the majority doin' it and the whole social system is changed? REVOLUTION! But allright, have it your way - The majority's coup, WHATEVER. Fuck you and your filibusting :rolleyes:

[Andy Bowden]

I was referring to Pinochet's coup. I wouldn't classify Allende's process as being a revolution because it did not go far enough.

I interpreted Publius's comment on economic miracles since the revolution as being economic miracles since Pinochet's take over - since Publius seems unlikely to describe the Allende gains as miracles.

I am sorry if I confused anyone :blink: