Political Crossfire Forums

[brian_in_idaho]

Katusmoto, your reply is one of the most reasoned ones I have seen and summarizes my opinions very well.

"They usually fail, because the leaders of the capitalist system either subdue them, or kill them. Any system that requires assassinations of very popular leaders by other countries like the United States is absolutely an unjust violation of those countries' sovereignty. And just think, those assassinations are continuations of the policies of neoliberalism and other forms of capitalism before it. "


>This statement baffles me. In a capitalist system both side are free to trade or not, to their own mutual benefit (or at least perceived benefit)-where do you get that a "capitalist system" would kill those leaders? Would you prefer gentlemen such as Stalin and Mao as the benevolent leaders of their people? Some of the 40 million dead in both countries would perhaps beg to differ with you if that were an option. .

The fundimental question in my mind involves the existance of a World Bank, on several fronts. First is that this bank is funded by taxes taken by various governments of the world. Do these governments have any business epropriating the wealth of their people to support their own policies towards the less developed countries of the world, regardless of their motive? As a tax payer, I find it very offensive that leaders of my country would forgive the debt owed the bank associated with our contributions, fundimentally, this is not their money to give away!

Capitalism requires voluntary transactions amoung those involved, and in the case of banking those lending money should expect that money to be paid back with a reasonable rate of return. If the leaders of that bank lend that money to corrupt national leaders who use that money for their own money, rather than investing it in businesses that can lead to production and profit, they should be replaced or their policies changed. What options are there for a government to make money to repay these loans? Their sources of income are either via taxes or through ownership of some means of production...one must question if it is ever a good idea to lend money to a nationalized business.

Edits coming, lunch break is over.

Bri

[ZakThePhilosopher]

brian_in_idaho wrote:
This statement baffles me. In a capitalist system both side are free to trade or not, to their own mutual benefit (or at least perceived benefit)-where do you get that a "capitalist system" would kill those leaders? Would you prefer gentlemen such as Stalin and Mao as the benevolent leaders of their people? Some of the 40 million dead in both countries would perhaps beg to differ with you if that were an option.


I don't get it. There's just no point in asking "where I get that a capitalist system would kill those leaders." That happens to be the unequivocal truth. If you read futher into it, you'll find that a strong majority of scholars and journalists recognize Torrijos' and Roldos' as CIA assassinations, along with many others. And the reinstatement of the Shah is one of the most famous CIA acts of all time.

You might find Confessions of an Economic Hitman (John Perkins) very interesting.

brian_in_idaho wrote: ...this bank is funded by taxes taken by various governments of the world. Do these governments have any business epropriating the wealth of their people to support their own policies towards the less developed countries of the world, regardless of their motive? As a tax payer, I find it very offensive that leaders of my country would forgive the debt owed the bank associated with our contributions, fundimentally, this is not their money to give away!

The thing is, most of the debts that were relieved in the 90's were built up in an effort to control borrowing LDC's. Since the 50's, various different alliances between western governments (principally USA and UK), big business and international banks had worked to trick these countries into becoming indebdted over their heads. They had done this on purpose, and used this hold on them to secure their positions in the Cold War.

Once more:

ZakThePhilosopher wrote:
thefranzkafkafront wrote: No one forces these countries to take the loans, its not like we lie about the intrest rate before hands...


They do lie. Not about interest rates but about forecasts for the affect of development. There are various insider accounts of this going on. I.e. the book Confessions of an Economic Hitman. The governments of LDC's are tricked and decieved into thinking that they will be able to pay off international loans (not just IMF and WB, but also USAID) with money earned from "development" projects that channel cash back to the countries and companies that carried them out. People in the highest echelons of these countries are paid off legally or illegally. Their consent hardly speaks for the people who will be taxed to repay loans. It's not a democratic process. As we know, these activities are carried out by business with weaker ties to government since the 80's, but it's the same deal.


In the 90's, with the Cold War over, they no longer needed the stranglehold that debt provided, and they wanted those countries to have money, since they knew that the rising tide of globalization would allow most of it to come back to them.