It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
Exactly. One more reason why Naomi Klein is a moron. We are not a democracy we are a constitutional republic just like we are not a capitalistic country in America we are a state corporatist economy.
Haiti — Natural Resources: Bauxite, copper, calcium carbonate, gold, marble, hydropower
Endowed with few commercially valuable natural resources, Haiti maintained only a small mining sector in the late 1980s; mining accounted for less than 1 percent of GDP, and it employed less than 1 percent of the labor force. The country's only bauxite mine, the Miragoâne mine in the southern peninsula, produced an average of 500,000 tons of bauxite a year in the early 1980s; however, in 1982 the declining metal content of the ore, high production costs, and the oversupplied international bauxite market forced the mine to close. Bauxite had at one time been the country's second leading export. Copper also was mined, beginning in the 1960s, but production of the ore was sporadic.
Originally posted by socrateeze
What is the matter with these people. Is there no compassion left in the world? Loan? Haiti needs all the help we can give to get back on their feet. They are human beings not cattle. This money as well as any other aid should be from the heart, not with a f.....g price tag. These people need our help, not our corporate assholes trying to make a profit from their misery. Let me guess, Haliburton will re-build right?
I did listen to most of Naomi's concerns and they are to me just plain ungrounded. How could any country, corporation, or entity take advantage of the Haitians? There is no profit to be had anywhere in the country.
We should look to the recent past in order to see the future. Look what the IMF did in Argentina. The track record bears out what you have articulated so well.
As Argentina entered into the lasting downturn of the period since 1998, the IMF continued, unwavering, in its financial support. The IMF provided "small" loans, such as $3 billion in early 1998 when the country's economic difficulties began to appear. As the crisis deepened, the IMF increased its support, supplying a loan of $13.7 billion and arranging $26 billion more from other sources at the I end of 2000. As conditions worsened further in 2001, the IMF pledged another $8 billion.
However, the IMF coupled its largesse with the condition that the Argentine government maintain its severe monetary policy and continue to tighten its fiscal policy by eliminating its budget deficit. (The IMF considers deficit reduction to be the key to macroeconomic stability and, in turn, the key to economic growth.)
The Argentine government undertook deficit reduction with a vengeance. With the economy in a nosedive and tax revenues plummeting, the only way to balance the budget was to drastically cut government spending. In early July 2001, just before making a major government bond offering, Argentine officials announced budget cuts totaling $1.6 billion (about 3% of the federal budget), which they hoped would reassure investors and allow interest rates to fall. Apparently, however, investors saw the cuts as another sign of worsening crisis, and the bonds could only be sold at high interest rates (14%, as compared to 9% on similar bonds sold just a few weeks before the announcement of budget cuts). By December, the effort to balance the budget required cuts that were far more severe; the government announced a drastic reduction of $9.2 billion in spending, or about 18% of its entire budget.
With these cutbacks, the government both eviscerated social programs and reduced overall demand. In mid-December, the government announced that it would cut the salaries of public employees by 20% and reduce pension payments. At the same time, as the worsening crisis raised fears that Argentina would abandon the currency board system and devalue the peso, the government moved to prevent people from trading their pesos for dollars by limiting bank withdrawals. These steps were the final straws, and in the week before Christmas, all hell broke loose.
The IMF made it clear that it was opposed to the higher tariffs on the grounds that it will hurt Ghana's poverty reduction program. Alphecca Muttardy, the IMF's current representative in Gahna claimed that Ghana could only increase the tariffs under a special dispensation provided to successful businesses only. Speaking to Olivia McDonald from the non-governmental organization (NGO) Christian Aid in Ghana, Muttardy said, "we pointed it out to government that this [raising of tariffs] was not a good idea, they reflected on it and we agreed."
"The actions of the government show clearly the desperation with which they seek to please the World Bank and the IMF," says Dominic Ayine, the director of the Center for Public Interest Law (CEPIL) and a lawyer representing the poultry farmers. "The opposition of the Bank and the IMF to increased tariffs is based on pure ideological reasons and it has little or no connection at all to the welfare of Ghanaian poultry farmers or the consuming public," said Ayine.
Moreover, as Ayine argues, the action of the Ghanaian government, under pressure from the IMF, has greatly undermined the tenets of good governance and the rule of law, which are said to be promoted by world financial institutions all over the world. "Overriding a judgment obtained through normal judicial processes does nothing but undercut the confidence with which citizens perceive the judicial process," he adds.
Beginning in 1983, Ghana has been implementing IMF structural adjustment programs focused on export-led growth, which has included measures to devalue the currency and remove various barriers to trade. While this has resulted in significant economic gains, it has also meant severe detrimental consequences for the rainforests and forest-dwelling people of this western African nation. Ghana’s most recent three-year, $239 million loan from the IMF was initiated in 1999, and modified in 2000.
The World Bank has meanwhile outlined the framework for a Palestinian Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) policy in their most recent report on Palestine published in December of 2004, “Stagnation or Revival: Israeli Disengagement and Palestinian Economic Prospects.”
Central to World Bank proposals are the construction of massive industrial zones to be financed by the World Bank and other donors and controlled by the Israeli Occupation. Built on Palestinian land around the Wall, these industrial zones are envisaged as forming the basis of export-orientated economic development. Palestinians imprisoned by the Wall and dispossessed of land can be put to work for low wages.
Originally posted by SeeingBlue
This was already posted
Google Video Link
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Haiti was not born poor, but rather saddled with debt, first by the French and now by the United States.
Haiti has been suffocated and stunted of any positive economic growth for many years thanks to Western Capitalist economic imperialism's stranglehold on countries and populations it deems inferior. (thread)
The International Monetary Fund said on Thursday it will increase Haiti's existing loan program by $100 million and disburse the funds quickly to help the government rebuild from the massive earthquake.
"Haiti's dire poverty has been built on centuries of injustice perpetrated against the country by the rich world. It is time for our part of the world to pay its debt to Haiti," the campaign's director, Nick Dearden, said.
Dearden said it was "completely inappropriate" for international institutions such as the IMF to be making new loans which would only saddle Haiti with more debt.
Haiti received $1.2 billion debt relief from the IMF and World Bank last year, but campaigners say it still has more than $600 million in debt on its books.
"Not only is lending the wrong solution for Haiti, but the IMF's loans come with conditions," the JDC said. "Haiti is still suffering as a result of conditions applied to its economy in the past."
IMF is disgusting to say the least!
Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
If the U.S has any control over it I feel like Haiti would become much more prosperous than what it is now, unless of course the U.S has some natural resources they want to dig out then it will become a hell hole.
Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by ModernAcademia
What ignorance it is to label this attempted crisis exploitation as "capitalism at work" when clearly what they were talking about is disaster communism.
They are talking about government loans to Haiti in exchange for political favors here.
Well, you can't seriously say that a government loan is capitalism when capitalism means government is to stay out of banking and every other sector for that matter.
I think such a government loan would best be described as disaster communism since government-run banking is a communist enterprise. Only a politician could twist clear-cut communism and spin it off as the polar opposite.
The only elements at work in today's society are fascism, socialism, and communism. Capitalism is something that quite frankly may have never even existed...Today we have plenty of disaster socialism, disaster communism, and especially disaster fascism.