Tominator2: No, just the illegal ones.
I would prefer the definition of illegal action not start with “It is not impossible to imagine”. I’m guessing it doesn’t.
Oasis:
Unless you can produce the “facts” that lead you to believe that places the IMF has helped have “gone to hell” Then you are just spouting rhetoric.
The IMF, the World Bank, the UN, the WTO have done a hell of alot more for this world, idiotic protestors.
You just jump on anything that has the name “World” or “International” and claim it’s the incarnate of evil and part of this “1 world government”
Your standard of living will go down? Whats the matter? You Wont be able afford your SUV?
Oh, i’m terribly sorry.
One world government NOW!
“I shot the sherrif, I shot the deputy too. No, it wasn’t in self defense. They both looked at me cockeyed so I capped 'em. Then I shot the mayor, then the firechief, decapitated the librarian, impaled the dog catcher, used a spoon to remove the groundskeepers eyes and sent the leader of the local KKK in full KKK uniform to downtown Manhattan. Then I made sweet love to the sexy 18 yr old intern, and it was all good.”
Having some personal experience in this area, perhaps I can shed some light on this matter. In my younger days, I was quite the protester, in that hotbed of radicalism, Berkeley, CA.
I’m not going to comment on the merits of the protesters’ case; I will stick to an analysis of their merits.
The one thing that any government, democratic or not, fears the most is masses of citizens demonstrating in the street. These fears are both political and practial. The political are obvious, the practical only a little less so: rioting and mob violence.
The demonstrators could have gone through all the procedures to organize a well-planned activity. It has been my experience that the police are very cooperative in this sort of activity. Police typically are not fascist monsters.
But the protesters did not wish such an activity. They specifically wanted to engage in civil disobedience to maximize the power of their message. This sort of protest is designed to provoke a police response.
Based on what I’ve seen, the incidents in DC are in the moderate area of response. Yes, the police made mistakes, as did the protesters.
One large mistake on both sides was the establishment of the headquarters in an unsafe location, and the subsequent raid by the fire department and the police. The organizers handed the police an easy opportunity to disrupt the organization, and the police took it.
But to avoid violence, civil disobedience on such a large scale must be carefully organized. If the police feel that disrupting the organization is an effective tactic, I fear we shall see more violence, and not less.
Personally, I think the use of “sleeping dragons” and other forms of interfering with the arrest are a little wussy. {curmudgeon voice} In my day, we just sat down in the road and got arrested. {/curmudgeon voice} The important thing was the arrest itself: To force the establishment to take official notice of the position. But times change, tactics change. The important thing is that the hardware is still intended for peaceful purposes, not to enable or further violence.
The important thing about the demonstration is that for a large group engaged in civil disobedience is that there was no rioting, no injuries, and little property damage. Things could have been considerably worse. But when you intentionally create a conflict with the police, some difficulties and overreactions are expected.
They have certainly succeeded in one respect: People are indeed more aware of these institutions and their role in our society is a new, important topic of debate.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I will stick to an analysis of their tactics.
Tominator2: sigh I was giving a rather simple example of how demonstrations designed to disrupt public order can also disrupt public safety. The base cause is that it can disrupt public safety. The base cause is not any one particular scenario. Scenario as in an example designed to illustrate the principle. Many laws are designed around the concept of what is possible to occur from reckless behaviour that has no regard for public order and safety.
Jaywalking is a good example. It isn’t that jaywalking causes accidents, it is that idiots crossing in the middle of the road show disregard for the fact that they are potentially causing a motorist to slam on their brakes and cause an accident. If you were to actually cause an accident you could be charged with something a little more serious than a jaywalking citation depending of course on the exact outcome of the accident.
Being a DC resident, I have a few comments:
If these protesters had to duplicate what happened in Seattle, did it have to include all this @!#?@! rain!? 
Some of the protester had mentioned blocking the 14th St. bridge to get attention. Yeah, that would’ve got my attention. And made me lose any sympathy I might have had for them. If just one bridge in this area gets shut down during rush hour, it @!#?@! -up traffic all around the Beltway.
For the above threat, the police closed the HOV (car pool) lanes from the Pentagon into the District. In case they did block the bridge, the police would’ve diverted traffic onto the HOV, thwarting their plan. But in order to do this, the police had to divert all the HOV traffic at the Pentagon to the regular lanes of I-395. There is no direct ramp for this. Hundreds of cars got diverted into Crystal City (where I work) to get to the regular lanes. So the last 1/4 mile of my commute took 20 @!?#@! minutes all because of some threat by IMF protesters.
You must unlearn what you have learned. – Yoda
The Sip’n Fly, you are ignorant of how the IMF operates. “Good guys”? - I think not. Wealthy, clever, connected thugs? - Yup.
The IMF is nothing but a sophisticated high-class scam which takes billions of U.S. tax dollars from us and gives it. . .not to the impoverished citizens of foreign nations, but to their leaders and financial institutions.
The pretext is monetary control and economic stability, but a modest glance at IMF statistics and results show that the actual purpose is hedging, or loss protection for Western institutions and investors. Risk management at the expense of those who are much weaker than we are.
The IMF generally makes things considerably worse for the nations they “help”. Look at what happened to Bulgaria & Mexico, and look at the continuing crisis in Russia and Asia. China and India had the right idea. The IMF rarely bothers to properly research foreign economies (Like the Russian provinces “one currency” disaster). The foreign governments then take it out on their people in the form of heavy taxes and stiff financial penalties: the people are worse off than before.
U.S. taxpayers need to wake up and realize where their money is actually going. We have almost 30% of the power in the IMF: if we want, we citizens could have some say as to where our hundreds of billions of dollars go.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
To echo what Sake said (and isn’t it strange, the issues that conservatives and liberals can agree on?):
Two words, The Sip’n Fly: Austerity measures. Look it up. Tell me it’s done for the benefit of the indebted countries, rather than outside investors. Examine the track record, and explain why most of these countries have seen their infrastructures gutted while falling deeper in debt.
[hijack]
Anyone care to debate the merits of the economic theories of Friedrich List as relating to forced free markets in developing countries?
[/hijack]
Would love to. However I’m not that familiar with them. Would you, or someone else, care to elaborate further?
Friedrich List was a 19th century economist who in many ways displayed more prescience about the future of international economics than either Smith or Marx. List developed a systematic theory of economic nationalism, arguing for a sort of graduated capitalism for developing countries. A quote:
From an article about List by Michael Lind:
(my emphasis)
The IMF forces indebted, developing countries (those two adjectives are pretty much redundant) to develop a neoliberal economic model, striking down protectionist policies so that outside investors can have full access to the countries’ markets (and their labor, and their resources). List would oppose this on the grounds that it isn’t a mutually beneficial transaction; he’d say that the poorer countries should be allowed to progress naturally from protectionism to open markets. It’s a vicious circle, of course: the debts incurred by these countries force outside revision of domestic policy, stripping the infrastructure of most services not essential to debt repayment and converting the economy from high-import to high-export at the expense of surplus subsistence crops. So the debt spirals higher, the country expends all its resources into paying off the interest rather than bolstering its own economy, and further outside ‘assistance’ is required. There goes sovereignty, and there goes development.
Basically, it boils down to this–List says (and history seems to corroborate) that sometimes a protectionist economy is necessary in order to foster national development. The IMF disallows protectionist economies in indebted countries; therefore, the development of these countries is stunted, to the benefit of outside parties and the instituional elite within the country.
Anyone care to debate? Whaddya think, oldscratch?
Sake Samurai + Gardeni:
Prove it, show how the IMF hurt Mexico, how it hurt Russia.
Justifiy this stupid crusade
“I shot the sherrif, I shot the deputy too. No, it wasn’t in self defense. They both looked at me cockeyed so I capped 'em. Then I shot the mayor, then the firechief, decapitated the librarian, impaled the dog catcher, used a spoon to remove the groundskeepers eyes and sent the leader of the local KKK in full KKK uniform to downtown Manhattan. Then I made sweet love to the sexy 18 yr old intern, and it was all good.”
First of all, with what part of what I’ve said do you take issue? Pay special attention to the parts about the IMF dictating policy to the indebted countries, policy which is usually more beneficial to outside agents than to the countries themselves. Go look up ‘austerity measures,’ and see how they gut national infrastructure. Debate my points on their merits, if you please.
Now then. David Driscoll of the IMF (on their website) outlines policies of reform which ask debt-ridden countries, “in a spirit of enlightened self-interest, to relinquish some measure of national sovereignty by abjuring practices injurious to the economic well-being of their fellow member nations.” Basically, creditor nations utilize the IMF to shape the internal economic policies of countries in need of financial relief. Structural reforms which liberalize markets, weaken unions, and facilitate foreign capital investment are invariably conditions of IMF loans. And the impulsive capital flow brought about by forced market liberalization can be extremely deleterious, forcing a nation deeper into recession while leaving their economic structure at the mercy of outside forces. This is basically what happened in Mexico, Brazil, and Asia. The opening of developing nation’s markets to global speculation can lead to wholesale destabilization and political conflict, exactly the sorts of scenarios the IMF is ostensibly trying to prevent. And the resultant capital flight after a nation has destabilized (see Mexico, Brazil, Russia) leaves the country destitute, reeling, and in more dire straits than before. As long as a country is a perceived credit risk, there’s always the threat of capital flight and no way to truly stimulate investment. So the countries are forced to comply with IMF loan conditions, as those loans are the only relief, however short-term and self-perpetuating, that they’re likely to get. How’s that for starters?
Bottom line: Wealthy countries exercise disproportionate decision-making power in the IMF, as it’s their dime that’s being spent. Since this is the case, the IMF can’t be counted on to act in the best interests of anyone but the countries it effectively represents. Historically, this has proven to be the case.
Please show me you can evaluate the lines of reasoning I’ve provided without resorting to ad hominem evasions.
Gadarene
Good morning. I am sorry that I do not have much time to devote to this topic at the moment, so forgive me if my comments are somewhat brief. While I acknowledge that there is great room for improvement in the international institutions of free trade (i.e., incorporating environmental sustainability into the framework of trade decisions) I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that they are bastions of colonialism and that they are maintaining the subjugation of developing nations. Though there have been mistakes in policy made, decisions that in hindsight were not the best, and self interest rears its head in many occasions, overall the World Bank, IMF and the WTO have, on balance, aided the entire world, including the developing world to a much greater degree than had there been no similar institutions to perform their role.
If I may ask you a few questions regarding you previous post? You say:
I have heard this before, but have never been able to pin down exactly what it means. Of course you are not implying that there are Frenchmen in Zaire carting off bridges and roadways, nor do I believe you mean to say that the IMF has disbanded the police and fire departments of towns in Botswana. But both infrastructure and gutting are relatively strong words. Which of the fiscal reforms, placed as a condition of further aid, are tantamount to the gutting of a country’s infrastructure? Please don’t parrot “go look up austerity measures” as you are assuming that anyone who does will come to the same conclusion you do.
You also say:
and conclude:
With the exception of the biased word weaken, this could have been written by a supporter of the institutions. For example, putting distance between the fiscal oversight of a nation and the political leadership is generally seen as a perquisite for economic (and political, for that matter) stability. (This, of course, assumes capitalistic democracies). The institutions themselves are part of a free-trade regime, a global economic body that developing nations turn to for aid. They were created to aid the economic development of said countries, not to distribute aid (there are other institutions for that). Therefore, if a country wants financial aid to help them grow their economy in partnership with other free-trade prone countries, it follows naturally that they would be expected to liberalize trade. Does the IMF et al demand that all aid is based on the removal of all import tariffs and domestic industrial subsidies?
Lastly, Why is facilitating foreign capital investment a bad thing? If countries are seeing an influx of private investment in addition to international aid, why is this a bad thing? Also, stating that the institutions ‘weaken unions’ is a strong statement. I would be interested in knowing how you came to that conclusion.
I apologize for my lack of time to devote to this topic this afternoon. As I stated from the outset, I understand that there is much work to be done to improve the institutions so I am very interested in your response. Thank you for listening.
Rhythmdvl
Once in a while you can get shown the light
in the strangest of places
if you look at it right…
Here is a good example from Thailand *"In August 1997, Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa announced that Hong Kong will commit US$1 billion to “rescue” the crisis-ridden Thai economy. This huge amount of money will be chanelled to the IMF, who will include it in an overall “rescue package” for the Thai economy. The IMF will lend the money to the Thai government, but at the same time attach very strict conditions. The Thai government MUST accept these conditions before the IMF will lend the money.
So what are these conditions? For a start, the Thai government must promise to privatise public enterprises and public utilities and sell state assets, including land. The government must also cut its spending on health, education and social welfare. Thailand must open up its economy to even more foreign investment and give foreign investors greater freedom to destroy the environment and exploit workers. At the same time, the government must cut subsidies to farmers and remove any remaining protection of small farmers from big agri-business. Finally, the government must agree to reduce workers’ wages to make the economy more “competitive”."*
**
Another quote:
*"In 1991-1992, a financial crisis in India persuaded the government to borrow money from the WB/IMF. In return for the loan, the Indian government promised to implement an ultra-liberal economic programme which included the following policies:
Attract foreign capital
Raise the restrictions on the level of investment of foreign capital in joint-ventures from 40% to 51%, with authorisations of up to 100%
Devaluation of the Indian rupee by 25%
Elimination of many subsidies: For example, the cost of chemical fertilizers, was increased by 30% as a result of the cut in farming subsidies.)
Reduction of the budgetary deficit from 8.5% to 6.5%, as demanded by the IMF
Privatisation of public enterprises and nationalized banks, with a plan to restrict the scope of the public sector to arms, ammunition, atomic energy, railways and various mining activities
Cancellation of the 1969 anti-monopoly laws "*
*"According to one of the organisers of Indian resistance to the WB/IMF, Vandana Shiva:
“The application of the structural adjustment programmes in India has brought no relief to the ordinary people, on the contrary. Even the modest agrarian reform applied has been suppressed. In two years, the number of unemployed in the cities has increased by four million. Out of the active rural population of 400 million, there are now 110 million unemployed. Traditional food production is being suppressed because it is not commercially viable. The land is used for agro-export and this leads to a contradiction: the number of calories produced in India has grown in the last few years, the number of calories consumed per head has diminished. The recent plague epidemic did not happen by chance. The restrictions in the refuse collection sector created the necessary conditions. Just try to think, what kind of disastrous thing might happen if this epidemic had broken out some years later, by which time the health sector will be completely privatised?”"*
I will provide more examples at a latter time today.
Rhythmdvl,
Great questions. Let me see if I can address them all. I do feel a bit like I’m gonna be repeating myself, though, since I thought I covered some of your points already in the thread–especially in the semi-tangent about Friedrich List. So anyway, if I’m not clear here, I’d be happy to clarify.
Oldscratch already listed several representative examples of the IMF asking for control over domestic policy as precondition for a loan. Funding for programs which are not seen as essential for debt repayment are in danger of being cut by the IMF’s restructuring–things like education, social investment, and non-essential roads and bridges (non-essential being all roads and bridges, generally, which don’t lead to ports or otherwise facilitate export). This, in my opinion, is a forcible shifting of national priorities to the extent that a country’s infrastructure–its ability to maintain its physical institutions and provide for the general upkeep of public services–is severely constrained and, to an extent, forbidden under loan conditions.
With regard specifically to the weakening of unions, I’ll use an example from the November-December 1998 issue of Dollars & Sense, in an article about the Korean labor unions’ opposition to IMF involvement in their country:
[quote]
The IMF agreement with Korea demanded:
[ul][li]austerity - very high interest rates, budget cuts, and tax hikes, sure to cause recession, raise unemployment, and force a tidal wave of bankruptcies;[/li][li]imposition of stringent Western banking regulations that forced bank failures and dried up credit to business;[/li][li]labor law “reform” which, for the first time, allows firms to fire workers at will;[/li][li]the removal of all restrictions on foreign ownership of Korean firms and banks; and[/li][li]the elimination of all forms of government control on both domestic and international capital flows.[/ul][/li][/quote]
Now, honestly, I’m a little surprised at (and uncomfortable with) the article’s normatively loaded tone, but the particulars of the IMF conditions are accurate–and include, as you see, the ability of firms to terminate workers at will. And if that doesn’t “weaken” unions, I don’t know what does. 
The September 18, 1999 issue of The Economist and the March 9, 1998 issue of The New Republic, among others, have articles sharply criticizing the structural reforms imposed by the IMF on indebted countries. And the quote I provided from the IMF itself indicates that the organization expects a countries to give up a large measure of national sovereignty in order to receive the loan money. So a country doesn’t have to take the loans, right? Well, even though membership in the organization is nominally voluntary and non-binding, even seeking financial help once can lead to the forfeiture of a good deal of autonomy in the name of relief. And since these countries are indebted to begin with, sometimes there simply isn’t another viable choice but to borrow. Most countries need loans just to pay off the interest on past loans–and, as I’ve mentioned before, they’re too much of a credit risk for private lenders.
You note that my description of the IMF’s policies “could have been written by a supporter of the institutions.” You’re right, and it’s a salient point, since the reforms demanded by the IMF are really not at issue (except, apparently, from The Sip’n Fly). What is at issue is the extent to which those reforms exacerbate already-existing problems, or create worse problems, or serve to destabilize the economies of developing countries. You (and IMF officials) say that private investment and liberalized markets are not bad things. And they’re not, in the right circumstances (see my post on List). But when a country is already unstable and economically in arrears, a sudden influx of skittish foreign money (money invested for short-term profit, to be yanked away if the situation isn’t stabilizing quickly enough–see Brazil) ain’t the best medicine.
You say that
Is the answer, then, to place the nation’s fiscal oversight in the hands of political leadership to whom the health of the nation’s economy is less important than the fact that their markets are liberalized? Or do you disagree that the IMF offers market liberalization as an across-the-board panacea? Can you see situations in which forced liberalization might not be the best course of action? (These aren’t rhetorical questions; I’m genuinely interested in your answer.)
You also say, speaking of the IMF and World Bank, that
Actually, the IMF serves foremost as an institution of financial stability. (That is, global financial stability rather than particularized national stability.) Only the World Bank exists explicitly to aid developing countries–it’s charged with deploying funds to creditworthy governments in the hope of stimulating sustainable economic development. And, as it happens, the World Bank does normally earmark the money it lends for specific public works projects to improve a nation’s infrastructure–roads, irrigation, and so on. Ironically, as we’ve seen, these are sometimes exactly the programs curtailed by the IMF’s austerity measures in its economic relief packages.
I’ve got much less of a problem with the World Bank than I do with the IMF and WTO. The loans it gives to extremely poor countries are interest-free and carry long dates of maturity. Furthermore, the World Bank doesn’t oversee the economic policies of its member nations (though it does work with the IMF to try and ensure that there is a stable base upon which assistance may be received). Insofar as the mandate of the World Bank is confined to facilitating the economic development of poorer countries, member nations in need of aid may be retaining greater sovereignty than those who borrow from the IMF, an institution which must provide for the welfare of industrialized nations as well. And the aims of the World Bank and IMF can sometimes be counterproductive, as is the case with infrastructure issues.
The biggest failing of the World Bank, in my opinion, is its sometime inability to understand the structural deficiencies–some instituted by the IMF–which have prevented the economic development of many of the countries being aided. This may change, though, as the World Bank’s chief economist last year issued a scathing indictment of IMF policies, for basically all the reasons we’ve been listing.
I don’t feel like I’ve done a very good job of answering your questions, actually. Please bear with me if I’ve been repetitive, and feel free to contend any points about which you feel I’m in error.
Good afternoon Oldscratch. Thanks for providing some specific details It appears that both of us are a bit short of time for posting, so I’ll get right to a couple of questions regarding the Thailand example.
What were the specific requirements of the loan that led to the statement
Did the government have to promise to privatize all public enterprises? Or is it possible that there were some government owned enterprises that were working to the detriment of the Thai economy. Which ones did they sell off? Of those that were sold, how does the level of service provided by the enterprise today compare with the level of service in the past? Without direct knowledge to speak of, I am going to assume that a case study of said privatization would find both successes and failures. I would also expect that the aggregate result of the privatization was to increase the potential for the economy to expand. If such measures did not result in a measurable benefit to the Thai economy, I would look for two things. One, I would look for the reason why the privitized companies failed, and two, I would look to see if the IMF placed identical restrictions on a future loan to another country. As I stated, the IMF is not a perfect institution, especially as it has the study of economics (an imperfect science) at its core. But as the goal of the IMF is economic development, I put forth the notion that machinations that run contrary to that goal will be discarded. (This presumes, of course, that there is some relationship between a country’s overall utility and its economic well being. That, however debatable it is, is another topic.)
The last thing I will comment on before I have to get back to work is the statement
Why is allowing more foreign investment in a country, that is, why is allowing an even greater influx of capital, necessarily bad? Why does it automatically have to lead to destruction of the environment and exploitation of workers? One does not necessarily follow from the other.
Remember, these countries are approaching the IMF et al because they *want[/I their economies to grow, they want to join in the global market. This is not a bad goal or desire and does not come instantly nor without alteration to previous ideals of economic policy. There is much more that both of us wish to say, I am sure, but as we are limited in time, I will leave you with the above. Again, thanks for bringing a concrete example to the discussion.
Rhythmdvl
Once in a while you can get shown the light
in the strangest of places
if you look at it right…
I’ll just respond to one quick point in your post, Rhythmdvl, and then I await your response to mine. 
I don’t know that this is necessarily true. The IMF steps in when the economies of member nations (a list which includes both debtors and creditors, including the United States, Great Britain, and Germany) collapse. It was originally established as an instrument of surveillance to ensure a commonality of economic policy, and has basically been thrust into the role of world lender. So to the extent that nations “approach” the IMF, they do so because of acute economic distress or severe indebtedness, not because they need a jumpstart into the global economy. That is, they don’t want their economies to grow necessarily, so much as to stop shrinking.
Sorry 'bout that. sigh
Also in response to this quote
If a country does approach the IMF, it is not the people of the country it is the government. These two forces are frequently opposed. Yes South Korea approached the IMF, but there were massive protests of hundreds of thousands of people against doing so.
What they are refering to here is weaking the existing protections for the environment and workers. It’s safe to say that when a foreign company comes into a third world country they will exploit both as much as the law will allow.