Engage what exactly? (4.00 / 3)

I think we should give the new Administration a chance to engage, however.

For months I have been waiting for the Administration to engage in:

1. financial re-regulation to monitor and control out-of-control securitization, CDOs, CDSs, etc. (terms I didn't even know one year ago) and other tools that can be used to bankrupt entire societies,
2. the repudiation of torture, the "pre-emptive" invasion of another country and other crimes against humanity,
3. the trial and punishment (if found guilty) of war criminals within this country responsible for those crimes,
4. the annulment of Bush era "laws", "legal opinions", "signing statements" and other legal mumbo-jumbo that violates the Constitution in too many ways to count, and
5. healthcare reform (that includes a public option).

So far, there have been a lot of inspirational speeches. The actions that have followed have turned out to be nearly the opposite of the words.

No, I'm past waiting to see what happens next. As far as I know that 100+ billion dollars is intended to pay off the bad CDS and derivative bets that foreign banks owe the U.S. banks. More free money.

---

by: Michael Harold @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 19:15:07 PM CDT

Good points, but the IMF isn't a US agency, so this is misguided (0.00 / 0)

Again: The IMF is a multinational instution, with 185 nations participating, and 24 supervising it. And the US share of the budget is 16% or so, less than that of the EU. You simply can't dictate IMF policies. This isn't the Fed!

So, with very much understanding for the frustration about the Obama administration's failure to change failed Bush policcies, but wanting the US to illegally (regarding international treaties) withhold funds in order to enforce policy changes at just another multinational assembly certainly isn't a departure from failed Bush policy either, but just another example of US ignorance and selfishness. And the rest of the world won't get you away with that anymore. Period.

There already have been IMF reforms in 2006 and 2007. And many other nations support changes of the IMF policy. So, there's a good chance to find a majority supporting reasonable changes. But nobody else will tolerate the US doing this in the "lonesome cowboy" way! All this will accomplish is isolating the US internationally again. Really, you can't imagine how pissed the rest of the world is about the ignorant and arrogant manners of "the yankees". If you really want changes, then start with changing yourself!

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 01:53:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

this is just "trust them" and they are "self-regulating" and "changing" anyway -- we've heard it all before -- (4.00 / 1)

The necessity of attaching firm and binding requirements and strings to ALL funding is because powerful and unaccountable institutions and groups have all utterly failed at proving themselves responsible.

It's insane to keep throwing billions and trillions away propping up all these failed systems -- whether it's IMF or Wall St or HMOs -- beyond insane.

it hurts the whole world.

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 20:07:03 PM CDT

Again, the IMF is a MULTINATIONAL institution! (0.00 / 0)

Hell, really, wtf is so hard to understand about that???
Amberglow, would you perhaps explain to me why you think it's a good idea to engage in even more of failed Bush policies by trying to strongarm an organisation where the US is only a minor shareholder (16/100 regarding the budget, 1/24 and 1/185 regarding votes)?

If you want changes there, fine, do it the right, democratic way: Start looking for allies and build a majority voting for them. This takes time, of course. If the US wanted to change anything for this budget year, there was the opportunity to do so at the last G20 meeting. Nothing happened. Well, try harder next time. Now shut the eff up and pay your share, like the rest of the world.

And at the same time, there's not even lukewarm participation in the discussion of regulation policies, a topic that has much higher financial consequences, and which is purely a US matter (even though the US stance will be a guiding post for many other nations). Really, sry for getting increasingly annoyed, but sometimes I simply can't understanding what is going on in your Yankee brains.
Grrr.

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 02:05:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

the IMF is bad for the world --& it's not democratic or accountable in any way (0.00 / 0)

it's only when we fund it that we can even try to change the way it operates -- and this fool responding to Chris is fine with no strings or regs at all.

---

by: amberglow @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 11:35:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Providing credit for strugling nations isn't bad in itself. (0.00 / 0)

It just depends on how this is done, and, indeed, the IMF enforced some very questionable, ideologically based policies in the past (demanded, and with huge backing by the US). But that attitude has already changed, and there have been reforms in 2006 and 2007 who are still underway (which I stated now for the umpteenth time. Does anybody here read what I write? Where does the reluctancy to accept facts come from?).

And then, AGAIN, the US isn't the only one who funds the IMF. You provide only about 16% of the moneys. And you don't have any right to unilaterally decide changes. Afaik you don't even have the right to put provisions on your contributions, or else every partner nation would do that and chaos would sprawl. If you don't want to pay, that's a shame, cause the US is contractually bound, and Obama even promised the funds at the April meeting. But ok, be stingy, disregard your ethical obligations, and become the only G20 member to drop out of that institution. In that case, your influence on it would soon become nil (which may actually be good), and of course the IMF would have to move away from Washington DC.

Damn, actually that's an interesting idea, major financial centers all other the world would topple over themselves in their desire to give the IMF a new home! Well, maybe it's about time such an important international institution is seated in other parts of the world than the US or Europe. Maybe Singapure would be a great choice! This sure would be a great signal for the increasing importance of the Asian hemisphere.

Did you think this all through? With all honest respect, Amber, but it's very easy to call for withholding the funds, without taking all consequences into account. And I doubt the US would like those consequences.

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 16:48:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

we already have set conditions on how and what IMF funds and why -- (0.00 / 0)

it's not like they don't have an agenda and ideology.

what we shouldn't be doing is enabling them when we know it hurts ppl and progress -- in those countries that need it most.

---

by: amberglow @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 16:28:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now, to the ethical side of this (0.00 / 0)

The US is responsible for allowing Wall Street to build this bubble, which was inflated with countless billions from all around the world. Other nations trusted in you superving and regulating the players behind that scheme, and they trusted in US rating agencies to commit a reasonable assesment of the risks. We all know now how well this payed off...

The US (in)action resulted in the worst global recession since WW II. And imho a very convincing argument can be made that the US are ethically responsible for helping other nations, whose banking sector is facing collapse, to deal with the consequences.

But instead, all we (the rest of the world) see, is an increasingly selfish attitude in the states to keep "your dollars" for yourself and leaving other nations alone in coping with this crisis. May I remind you that it weren't "your dollars" in the first place? The US profitted greatly from foreign investors from 2001 to 2008. And the money isn't gone, it just changed hands. All you have to do for being able to compensate other nations for their losses is finding the offenders and sqeezing the money out of them! Don't tell the rest of the world you can't do that. All that is necessary is a new tax policy that digs into the decadent profits the rich, especially the bankers, received during the last years. And then it would be no problem to pay one hundred billions to the IMF, in order to prevent the economy of other nations from falling apart.

Sry, but as I see it, you (as a nation) have an ethical obligation, and you have the means for fulfilling it. Excuse me pls for being severely disappointed about the ridiculous fingerpointing at the IMF now. That's pathetic.  

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 02:28:11 AM CDT

reinflating the bubbles and perpetuating the actions that harm billions is not ethical (0.00 / 0)

-- that's the problem.

if we want to aid other countries, we can and should do it truly ethically -- not thru globalising, privatizing, "free market" orgs like IMF and World Bank

---

by: amberglow @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 11:37:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The proper way to prevent bubble reinflation is tough regulation! (0.00 / 0)

And that's an issue where many G20 nations would like to seethe US taking leadership role! That's something that has to be coordinated internationally, and without the US, it can't be done at all (multinational corps would flee to the regulation haven US). Gladly, Obama now came up with a plan, but it's not really convincing in some regards (read Krugman's view). That's an issue where it's very important that progressives make a stand against the fat cats, or else the bill will become even more watered down. But where is the progressive interest in that issue here? Is Mike Lux the only one who cares???

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 16:29:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and tough regulation is exactly what they don't want, and what this response is arguing against (0.00 / 0)

-- that's the point.

many of us want our money spent here -- on us. that's what our govt exists for -- not for social engineering and shock doctrine for multinationals and propping up corruption, etc...

that's true of everyone everywhere -- and is essential at times like this.

---

by: amberglow @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 16:31:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Entirely unconvincing (4.00 / 2)

Sure, the IMF is a multi-national, but the US is the most powerful player (16.79% of votes).

If Obama argues for immediate reform and an end to counter-productive structural adjustments, Britain (4.86%) is likely to follow, as Brown needs to win soft left votes. That brings the voting power up above 20%.

Then factor in the 165 nations with 28.78% of the vote between them. They're mostly LEDCs, and while they're poor enough for some of them to be bribed, it's normally the US that does that. We could hold the vast majority of those votes.

Then add in Venezuela, Brazil and India, none of which are likely to endorse the IMF's prevailing strategies, and you've over 50%. Upon which point, the French (and possibly several other nations) will join in as part of a bandwagon effect.

Reform of the IMF is possible, but it goes nowhere until the US loudly and explicitly declares itself in favour.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 06:51:41 AM CDT

Hmm, lefty, do you really think that denying IMF funds is a winner with the left? (0.00 / 0)

With the European left, I mean? There may be some who advocate isolationist policies who support that, but I don't see a general consensus here in Germany. No huge outcry about Merkel promising billions for the IMF. Is the mood in the UK different? "Splendid Isolation" again?

Apropos promises, the G20 nations promised up to 500 billions in new funds for the IMF at the meeting last April:

"The new funds available through IMF and other institutions included 250 billion dollars of IMF reserve units called Special Drawing Rights. In addition, the IMF would see its own resources tripled, with up to 500 billion dollars of new funds, of which 40 billion would come from China - a significant step for the world's third largest economy. Much of that is likely to go to struggling poorer countries, notably in eastern Europe."
http://www.nrc.nl/internationa...

That's why I'm flabbergasted about the opposition to the US contributing their share now. Do some on the left want Obama to break his promise? And why the big brouhaha about 100 billion in credits (which will be repaid some day), but almost no interest in the details of tighter regulation of financial institutions, where Obama falls short of what other G20 leaders wanted? Makes no real sense to me.

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 08:49:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's a winner with all who have seen the "shock doctrine", etc, hurt their lives -- in the developed West and elsewhere (0.00 / 0)

-- this is not a left/right issue.

It's about how we use our power to change other countries and whether it's better for them, for us -- or just for global banks, investors, and corporations.

---

by: amberglow @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 11:40:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sry, but using "your" power to change "other" countries" is a problem... (0.00 / 0)

..in itself, and an issue where the US actually has been a negative force for decades now. The polls from all around the world are explicit in this point. So, instead of simply changing the way you think "other" countries should be run, wouldn't it be much better to stay out of that business, once and for all? Sry, but those "other" countries already had a lot of bad experiences, and I doubt there is any tolerance left to give you the benefit of the dount. I mean, look at your statement again, that you say it also should be better for you, the US, is revealing.

That's why I think the US should totally abstain from unilateral moves in that direction, and only pursuit this in accordance with other nations. Discuss the problem at G20, built a majority for changes that are widely accepted, and act in accordance to the decisions of the international community. That's the only way to restore US credibility in that field again. Y'all seem to totally underestimate how strong the opposition to unilateral US policies actually has become. For instance, do you believe the folks in Latin America did already forgive and forget the horrible interventions on behalf of murderous dictators? Has the US ever really excused for that shit, and compensated people for the loss of their beloved ones? More self-criticism, pls! Really.

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 16:18:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i agree -- that's why IMF/World Bank and most other "aid" is wrong and hurts other countries -- (4.00 / 1)

we do economic and social engineering with our money all the time -- it has to either stop or be regulated and not solely intended to enrich corps and hurt the power of other govts to provide essential services.

---

by: amberglow @ Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 16:26:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]