Do you believe that washingtons birth righters are justified in their quest to control other countries resources through hegemony .“exceptionalism”
They seem to be losing the battle.
"China, 20 Other Countries Initiate New Asian Bank http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-21-countries-initiate-asian-bank-26415069
. . .
The bank is in large part China’s reaction to being constantly relegated to second-class status at existing institutions. China is also backing another alternative institution, the New Development Bank, sponsored by the so-called BRICS countries that also include Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa.
The idea is that if the U.S. and other major powers won’t make room for China at the table, then Beijing will make its own. China also hopes the bank will improve its global stature and end what it views as the West’s bullying and discrimination in the political and economic spheres."
Citizen5, welcome to the SDMB.
Please note that the Straight Dope is very sensitive to copyright laws and, following fair use practices, only short excerpts from other sites are permitted. Copying the entire text, or the majority of the text from a copyrighted article is forbidden. I have shortened your post to avoid copyright issues.
We don’t mind “making room for China at the table”. It would be appreciated however if China stopped gobbling up the hors d’oeuvres and claiming dibs on the best entrees.
That’s not enforcing “hegemony”, it’s good table manners.
Are you referring to economically or military entrees? NAFTA was the beginning of our manufacturing jobs off shoring and as far as I know China has no foreign military bases while the US has over 200. Im not sure what you are talking about.
Well, the article claims that Washington is against the development. So, perhaps that’s what the “Washington birth righters” refers to.
I don’t see that this is really anything to get worked up over. The amount of money involved isn’t that much (yet) in the grand scheme of the world economy, and if it works out to be beneficial to its members, then so much the better. If it is disastrous for its members, then we’ve got the traditional institutions in place anyway to serve as competition and perhaps a backstop.
But, in reading the article:
Oh, come on. The current institutions only pay lip-service to environmental and labor protection throughout the developing world.
Additionally, it doesn’t surprise me that developing countries would want to be able to disentangle themselves from the IMF. Although the IMF has recently taken some steps away from its traditional “austerity now, austerity always” approach to economic crises, a lot of countries have been burned by the IMF in the past. Countries are going to do what they think is best for them, and if they think building other institutions can lessen the pain of IMF-prescribed remedies, then that’s what they’re going to do.