The IMF and its role in contemporary economics

[Dean]

I thought it was very interesting that the IMF "warned" Congress last week that more hardships would come about if they didn't quickly approve the bailout bill. The International Monetary Fund is a global lending scheme which serves to fund developing nations with low-interest loans on the bill of the U.S. - with furtehr stipulations, of course. Developing nations have criticised it, notably for its demands for retribuons and their effect on their economies and environments.

The following columnist remarks that the days of IMF control are over: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/08/interestrates.banking

She says that, while the powerful G7 western nations used to hold tremendous sway, the emerging economies of Russia, China &c. are not as intereted.

What are your thoughts? I've always wondered about it, but I never fully grasped the relevance of the organization.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, the Bretton-Woods system was a big step towards the "debt peonage" of the Third World. But other than that obvious point, I'm not sure.

I've read this, though, and it's somewhat informative on the IMF and its history:

http://mutualist.org/id100.html

[Labor Shall Rule]

I thought it was very interesting that the IMF "warned" Congress last week that more hardships would come about if they didn't quickly approve the bailout bill. The International Monetary Fund is a global lending scheme which serves to fund developing nations with low-interest loans on the bill of the U.S. - with furtehr stipulations, of course. Developing nations have criticised it, notably for its demands for retribuons and their effect on their economies and environments.

The following columnist remarks that the days of IMF control are over: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/08/interestrates.banking

She says that, while the powerful G7 western nations used to hold tremendous sway, the emerging economies of Russia, China &c. are not as intereted.

What are your thoughts? I've always wondered about it, but I never fully grasped the relevance of the organization.

The switch from the gold standard to finance capital required liberalization on a global-scale - the crisis of profitability meant that a guaranteed return of investment from manufacturing couldn't be maintained unless short-term profits (rather than sustainable growth) were reaped from low-cost regions. The IMF and WTO (of course) oversaw the shifting of a huge amount of investment from the United States, Japan, Canada, and western Europe to Asia.

China and Russia are not interested indeed.


As policy makers in Europe and the U.S. scrambled to coordinate interest rate policy to shore up confidence, President Dmitry Medvedev called for a stronger role for financial regulators, auditors and ratings agencies to combat the global financial crisis.
"Any crisis is a natural way of resolving contradictions. And it must be used to 'clean up' and to extend and maximize the period of growth for our economies," said Medvedev, who was speaking at an international conference in Evian, France.
He also proposed a new global financial architecture, arguing that bullwarks of the old financial order — the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization — had been discredited in the 1990s. He said new financial centers and strong regional currencies could provide stability and prevent a repeat of the global financial crisis. Medvedev has previously touted Moscow's ambitions to become a financial center and make the ruble a reserve currency.


Dmitry Medvedev has plans to continue Putin's drive to break from credit-sensitive markets (their oil and gas industries) - which caused the slide in Russia's markets in the first place. It's about "maximing the period of growth for [their] economy" vis-a-vis breaking from their spot as a Western dominion. The mounting tensions over Georgian and Azberjijian pipe-lines is indicative of the growing fears from Washington that they could possibly choke off strategic energy lines in the distant future (or spend more to have access to petroleum = have less profits).

Obama (and other members of the political establishment) has been upfront about their fears about Russia: "I think they've engaged in evil behavior, and I think that it is important that we understand they're not the old Soviet Union, but they still have nationalist…impulses that I think are very dangerous." McCain didn't sound much different - "I think we can deal with them, but they got to understand that they're facing a very firm and determined United States of America that will defend our interests and that of other countries in the world."

The Obama (or McCain) presidency would counter Russian expansionism in a oil-rich Central Asia. It would push through the IMF-led reform on pro-US states (in exchange for military arms and investment), create a hostile ring around Russia, and possibly make them enter NATO to stop Moscow in it's steps.

[ckaihatsu]

Let's go through the checklist, from top to bottom: military, finance, manufacturing, energy, and whatever else:


- Georgia couldn't control its itchy trigger finger and went ahead and bumped its head on Russia's front door, to no avail. That was the extent of Western military power, eastward, played out on the world stage for all to see.... [- check -]

- Western financial status -- Do I need to say anything here? Is it provoking envy from any quarters of the world? [- check -]

- Manufacturing, energy -- This isn't the twentieth century nation-versus-nation race to modernization anymore. Russia and China can access their own regional supplies without having to get sign-offs from NATO, etc. [- check -]


So what's left to discuss? Anything? Then maybe the U.S. will finally have to admit that it has neighbors. Are we done here, then?


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Dean]

Dmitry Medvedev has plans to continue Putin's drive to break from credit-sensitive markets (their oil and gas industries) - which caused the slide in Russia's markets in the first place. It's about "maximing the period of growth for [their] economy" vis-a-vis breaking from their spot as a Western dominion. The mounting tensions over Georgian and Azberjijian pipe-lines is indicative of the growing fears from Washington that they could possibly choke off strategic energy lines in the distant future (or spend more to have access to petroleum = have less profits).

Obama (and other members of the political establishment) has been upfront about their fears about Russia: "I think they've engaged in evil behavior, and I think that it is important that we understand they're not the old Soviet Union, but they still have nationalist…impulses that I think are very dangerous." McCain didn't sound much different - "I think we can deal with them, but they got to understand that they're facing a very firm and determined United States of America that will defend our interests and that of other countries in the world."

The Obama (or McCain) presidency would counter Russian expansionism in a oil-rich Central Asia. It would push through the IMF-led reform on pro-US states (in exchange for military arms and investment), create a hostile ring around Russia, and possibly make them enter NATO to stop Moscow in it's steps.


So what's left to discuss? Anything? Then maybe the U.S. will finally have to admit that it has neighbors. Are we done here, then?

I don't understand why we're getting into all this? I'm talking very specifically about the IMF. Since it's a global organization, I'm sure it has some interests there, but exactly how is it related?


The switch from the gold standard to finance capital required liberalization on a global-scale - the crisis of profitability meant that a guaranteed return of investment from manufacturing couldn't be maintained unless short-term profits (rather than sustainable growth) were reaped from low-cost regions. The IMF and WTO (of course) oversaw the shifting of a huge amount of investment from the United States, Japan, Canada, and western Europe to Asia.

China and Russia are not interested indeed.
The gold standard? What does that have to do with it? Also, overseeing something doesn't mean the IMF actually had a role. It only means that they were impotent to stop it.


Well, the Bretton-Woods system was a big step towards the "debt peonage" of the Third World. But other than that obvious point, I'm not sure.

I've read this, though, and it's somewhat informative on the IMF and its history:

http://mutualist.org/id100.html
Thanks, I'll look over that later.

[bcbm]

What are your thoughts? I've always wondered about it, but I never fully grasped the relevance of the organization.

The IMF/WB were major players in the past few decades, loaning massive amounts of money to third world countries (often with corrupt leaders) on the promise that they would oversee a "structural readjustment," which would make the countries playgrounds for neoliberal interests- dismantling of national industry, privatization across the board, etc. Since the rise of the the "no globals" movement and the defaulting of Argentina on their loans, there's been a lot of resistance from the third world countries to their debt and the IMF/WB have basically lost most of their relevance. Seems like they're desperately trying to stay important, but I doubt it will matter.