Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[feverpitch]

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=86742

Blair may be the new face of World Bank

Agencies

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Washington, May 19: At a time when the debate on whether the position of the World Bank president should be an exclusive American preserve, reports of outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair contending for the honourable post is making waves.

Although the US State department said the post has traditionally been with the US and the Bush administration is already into the process of choosing a successor to Paul Wolfowitz, who steps down next month, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz was quoted as saying that Blair was "in the frame" for the job.

Stiglitz is the former senior vice president and chief economist of World Bank.

“Blair is one of the people that is clearly being discussed,” he added. Stiglitz highlighted that being a strong political leader, Blair also has the kinds of connections that one needs and would be useful as head of the institution.

Meanwhile, the US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said, "It has been the tradition, that the US president has appointed a person to that job. And that person traditionally has been an American."

"Secretary of Treasury Paulson is in the process of collecting some names that he will forward to the president for his consideration. The president will then nominate the next president of the World Bank," McCormack said.

When asked whether the State department was playing a part in the process, he said, "I can't tell you whether or not the State Department has played any formal role in that process. Secretary Rice, I'm sure, will offer her views if she's asked either by the president or Secretary Paulson and she may also have some thoughts that she'll offer on her own".

"... the President is committed and Secretary Paulson is committed to forwarding names of people who are well qualified and who would merit selection and nomination as the next president of the World Bank," he said.

McCormack parried a query whether the events of the last few weeks surrounding Wolfowitz had damaged the reputation of the World Bank.

"I can't tell you whether or not it's damaged the reputation of the World Bank on the international scene. It's been a very trying period for the bank. President Bush talked about it and he's sorry that it came to this because Paul Wolfowitz is a good man who is committed to fighting poverty around the world.

He is committed to lifting up those most in need around the world. But it's been a very difficult couple of months, while this whole episode was played out," McCormack said praising the outgoing WB president.

"The World Bank is an important institution. And there are a lot of very capable, skilled professionals who work there. Obviously we can all benefit from their expertise. I think they can also benefit from perspectives of others on the outside, who might have different ideas about how to go about the work of poverty alleviation and development," he said.

"The World Bank, I expect, will continue to be an important institution in the international system, concerned with issues of poverty alleviation and development" McCormack maintained.

Other name that has been doing the round as possible successors to Wolfowitz, include former US Trade Representative Robert Zolleck.

[sudzz]

Pardon my ignorance but why is this world body always headed by a American?

[vincent]

Both WB and IMF were created after the second world war and there was a tacit understanding between Americans and West Europeans that WB head will always be an American and IMF head will always be an European the rest of the world being either "Soviet" or insignificant.

[feverpitch]

Pardon my ignorance but why is this world body always headed by a American?

It's called D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y.

[sudzz]

Both WB and IMF were created after the second world war and there was a tacit understanding between Americans and West Europeans that WB head will always be an American and IMF head will always be an European the rest of the world being either "Soviet" or insignificant.

Vince I know the details of the Bretton Woods agreement etc,all Iam asking is why is the rest of the world in a scenario where other economies are growing and are powerful enough allow the position to be retained by Americans?

[feverpitch]

Both WB and IMF were created after the second world war and there was a tacit understanding between Americans and West Europeans that WB head will always be an American and IMF head will always be an European the rest of the world being either "Soviet" or insignificant.

Vince I know the details of the Bretton Woods agreement etc,all Iam asking is why is the rest of the world in a scenario where other economies are growing and are powerful enough allow the position to be retained by Americans?

In a democracy, decisions are made by vote, or consensus. Its unfortunate that the rest of the world do not have a vote in this. Neither did most of the subjects in the society that gave us the word democracy.

[vincent]

Both WB and IMF were created after the second world war and there was a tacit understanding between Americans and West Europeans that WB head will always be an American and IMF head will always be an European the rest of the world being either "Soviet" or insignificant.

Vince I know the details of the Bretton Woods agreement etc,all Iam asking is why is the rest of the world in a scenario where other economies are growing and are powerful enough allow the position to be retained by Americans?

Ok, there I agree with you since we are no more in the "post war" mode. Especially these days Russia and China are flush with cash some of which could be (if they want) used for the world bank. I guess power comes with money. I would like to see all G8 countries having equal power in deciding the WB/IMF heads. Today, it is not even US that decides - it is just the US Govt that decides, mostly decision being made by the President himself.

[feverpitch]

Ok, there I agree with you since we are no more in the "post war" mode.

Why did the "post war" mode justify the US/EU supremacy on WB?IMF, in your opinion?

Especially these days Russia and China are flush with cash some of which could be (if they want) used for the world bank. 

Aaah. So long they did not have greenbacks in their vaults they were ineligible. Now they do, they are game.

I guess power comes with money. 

Not if you are late, and certainly not if you are a lackey with a lot of hot air pretense.

I would like to see all G8 countries having equal power in deciding the WB/IMF heads. 

What about other countries? The ones who are most affected by WB/IMF policies?

Today, it is not even US that decides - it is just the US Govt that decides, mostly decision being made by the President himself.

Lost you there. Did the general public ever vote in a referendum to select WB president in the past?

[sudzz]

Ok, there I agree with you since we are no more in the "post war" mode.

Why did the "post war" mode justify the US/EU supremacy on WB?IMF, in your opinion?

no it did not justify but all the same they were powerful and monied so there you have the reason

Especially these days Russia and China are flush with cash some of which could be (if they want) used for the world bank. 

Aaah. So long they did not have greenbacks in their vaults they were ineligible. Now they do, they are game.
[/quote] a developmental bank is run on the basis of who has the maximum money to contribute towards the cause, as they say there are no free lunches and the investing countries would not invest without their interests being protected

I guess power comes with money. 

Not if you are late, and certainly not if you are a lackey with a lot of hot air pretense.
[/quote] fair enough timing does matter

I would like to see all G8 countries having equal power in deciding the WB/IMF heads. 

What about other countries? The ones who are most affected by WB/IMF policies?
[/quote] the countries affected unfortunately dont bring in the funds therefore technically a "bhikhari" does not have a say in how much "bheek" he will get

Today, it is not even US that decides - it is just the US Govt that decides, mostly decision being made by the President himself.

Lost you there. Did the general public ever vote in a referendum to select WB president in the past?

[/quote]

[vincent]

I think Sudzz (who I guess works in the Banking Industry) has answered most of your questions.

As far as the last one, I did not mean all of US. I meant some intelligent body in the US, comprising of experts like Greenspan, Geoffrey Sachs etc..like and not necessarily the same. The decision should not be a political one but based on competence of the person.

[feverpitch]

Ok, there I agree with you since we are no more in the "post war" mode.

Why did the "post war" mode justify the US/EU supremacy on WB?IMF, in your opinion?

no it did not justify but all the same they were powerful and monied so there you have the reason

So you mean that democracy = rule of the monied & powerful? Or are you happy at overlooking US autocracy [but ready to pass judgement on Soviet/Chinese systems of operation]?

Especially these days Russia and China are flush with cash some of which could be (if they want) used for the world bank. 

Aaah. So long they did not have greenbacks in their vaults they were ineligible. Now they do, they are game.

a developmental bank is run on the basis of who has the maximum money to contribute towards the cause, as they say there are no free lunches and the investing countries would not invest without their interests being protected

Then why call it a 'development bank'?

I guess power comes with money. 

Not if you are late, and certainly not if you are a lackey with a lot of hot air pretense.

fair enough timing does matter

Why the pretense of democracy?

I would like to see all G8 countries having equal power in deciding the WB/IMF heads. 

What about other countries? The ones who are most affected by WB/IMF policies?

the countries affected unfortunately dont bring in the funds therefore technically a "bhikhari" does not have a say in how much "bheek" he will get

As you yourself said, a bank, even a 'developmental one' as the WB, works under the premise of lending with interest. Since when did bheek include the necessity to return with interest?

Today, it is not even US that decides - it is just the US Govt that decides, mostly decision being made by the President himself.

Lost you there. Did the general public ever vote in a referendum to select WB president in the past?

??

I think Sudzz (who I guess works in the Banking Industry) has answered most of your questions.

I hope you've seen the above answers.

As far as the last one, I did not mean all of US. I meant some intelligent body in the US, comprising of experts like Greenspan, Geoffrey Sachs etc..like and not necessarily the same. The decision should not be a political one but based on competence of the person.

You mean the possible appointment of Alan Greenspan [or Jeffrey Sachs, not Geoffrey] would be necessarily a non political one?

[vincent]

The key point here is "democracy" does not mean everybody has the right to decide ( not express opinion) on eyerything that happens.

Banking and business in general is not done by "one man one vote rule". This was not even done by the Soviets during their Socialist Heaven days. If you look at India today, that is one of our main problems. The states of Maharashtra and South India together provide more than half of India's tax revenues. And yet the Hindi Belt has more votes and the decisions related to anything and for for the channel of funds are taken by their desires and votes. And one can see where that has brought us.

If you look at UN today, you can not complain about US bullying them. After all, they pay 25% of UN expenses. If I would hold 25% of of the stakes of a company, I would bully them too if they are inefficient. So, the solution would be if every country would pay the UN their exdpense-shares in proportion with ther population or their GDP. That would justify the one man- one vote principle.This is the same for WB and IMF. If all countries would contribute proportionally to their GDP then there would be a rationale for some kind of one-man-one-vote decision.

Now, this no way means that US or Europe can not decide on a third world candidate if he or she is the best one to fill that position.

As far as your last point is concerned, I was talking about their recommendation rather than them nominating themselves or others. Having said that, I would not mind having Sachs in that role. And thank you for the correction. Yes, it is Jeffrey. I should have known better, since he was the professor of both my daughter as well as my son-in-law and I have seen him in action. He is very much deicated to the poor countries - if you want a "Bono" who is also an Ecomonist. But he may not like any political appointments even if it his own.

[toney]

The key point here is "democracy" does not mean everybody has the right to decide ( not express opinion) on eyerything that happens.

Banking and business in general is not done by "one man one vote rule". This was not even done by the Soviets during their Socialist Heaven days. If you look at India today, that is one of our main problems. The states of Maharashtra and South India together provide more than half of India's tax revenues. And yet the Hindi Belt has more votes and the decisions related to anything and for for the channel of funds are taken by their desires and votes. And one can see where that has brought us.

If you look at UN today, you can not complain about US bullying them. After all, they pay 25% of UN expenses. If I would hold 25% of of the stakes of a company, I would bully them too if they are inefficient. So, the solution would be if every country would pay the UN their exdpense-shares in proportion with ther population or their GDP. That would justify the one man- one vote principle.This is the same for WB and IMF. If all countries would contribute proportionally to their GDP then there would be a rationale for some kind of one-man-one-vote decision.

Now, this no way means that US or Europe can not decide on a third world candidate if he or she is the best one to fill that position.

As far as your last point is concerned, I was talking about their recommendation rather than them nominating themselves or others. Having said that, I would not mind having Sachs in that role. And thank you for the correction. Yes, it is Jeffrey. I should have known better, since he was the professor of both my daughter as well as my son-in-law and I have seen him in action. He is very much deicated to the poor countries - if you want a "Bono" who is also an Ecomonist. But he may not like any political appointments even if it his own.

Very informative. If I didn't mention it before, I am a huge fan of your posts.

...
Yes, it is Jeffrey. I should know, since he was the professor of both my daughter as well as my son-in-law and I have seen him in action.

Really? So how old are you?

[feverpitch]

The key point here is "democracy" does not mean everybody has the right to decide ( not express opinion) on eyerything that happens.

Then why call it so? Why not call it dictatorship, autocracy etc?

Banking and business in general is not done by "one man one vote rule". This was not even done by the Soviets during their Socialist Heaven days.

Where does the Soviet socialist heaven necessitate an entry into this discourse?

If you look at India today, that is one of our main problems. The states of Maharashtra and South India together provide more than half of India's tax revenues. And yet the Hindi Belt has more votes and the decisions related to anything and for for the channel of funds are taken by their desires and votes. And one can see where that has brought us.

Are you suggesting seccession of the Southern states?

Or would you prefer better governance and tax collection?

If you look at UN today, you can not complain about US bullying them. After all, they pay 25% of UN expenses. If I would hold 25% of of the stakes of a company, I would bully them too if they are inefficient.

So you do mean that democracy is not one man one vote, or as in the case of nations, one country one vote; BUT rule of the mighty.

So, the solution would be if every country would pay the UN their exdpense-shares in proportion with ther population or their GDP. That would justify the one man- one vote principle.This is the same for WB and IMF. If all countries would contribute proportionally to their GDP then there would be a rationale for some kind of one-man-one-vote decision.

Population or GDP? Which one do you want?

Or, more realistically, which one WOULD THE USA want?

Now, this no way means that US or Europe can not decide on a third world candidate if he or she is the best one to fill that position.

You mean the EU and/or USA decide that a third world candidate is good [for them], and give their nod, right?

As far as your last point is concerned, I was talking about their recommendation rather than them nominating themselves or others. Having said that, I would not mind having Sachs in that role. And thank you for the correction. Yes, it is Jeffrey. I should know, since he was the professor of both my daughter as well as my son-in-law and I have seen him in action.

Have you heard the name of Andrei Shleifer? Does the name David Lipton mean anything to you?

You might want to read William Easterly's criticism of Jeffrey's book "The White Man's Burden".

[toney]

Have you heard the name of Andrei Shleifer? Does the name David Lipton mean anything to you?

You might want to read William Easterly's criticism of Jeffrey's book "The White Man's Burden".

TheWall,
Please note these down. I shall ask you about them in a pop-quiz later on.

[feverpitch]

Have you heard the name of Andrei Shleifer? Does the name David Lipton mean anything to you?

You might want to read William Easterly's criticism of Jeffrey's book "The White Man's Burden".

TheWall,
Please note these down. I shall ask you about them in a pop-quiz later on.

Where? In your mutual ignorance society?

[dextrous]

Have you heard the name of Andrei Shleifer? Does the name David Lipton mean anything to you?

You might want to read William Easterly's criticism of Jeffrey's book "The White Man's Burden".

TheWall,
Please note these down. I shall ask you about them in a pop-quiz later on.

Any particular reason you've decided to ruin a perfectly fine thread?

[feverpitch]

Have you heard the name of Andrei Shleifer? Does the name David Lipton mean anything to you?
You might want to read William Easterly's criticism of Jeffrey's book "The White Man's Burden".

TheWall,
Please note these down. I shall ask you about them in a pop-quiz later on.

Any particular reason you've decided to ruin a perfectly fine thread?

You should know perfectly well. It's the case of crabs in a hole.

[sudzz]

The key point here is "democracy" does not mean everybody has the right to decide ( not express opinion) on eyerything that happens.

Then why call it so? Why not call it dictatorship, autocracy etc?

Banking and business in general is not done by "one man one vote rule". This was not even done by the Soviets during their Socialist Heaven days.

Where does the Soviet socialist heaven necessitate an entry into this discourse?

If you look at India today, that is one of our main problems. The states of Maharashtra and South India together provide more than half of India's tax revenues. And yet the Hindi Belt has more votes and the decisions related to anything and for for the channel of funds are taken by their desires and votes. And one can see where that has brought us.

Are you suggesting seccession of the Southern states?

Or would you prefer better governance and tax collection?

If you look at UN today, you can not complain about US bullying them. After all, they pay 25% of UN expenses. If I would hold 25% of of the stakes of a company, I would bully them too if they are inefficient.

So you do mean that democracy is not one man one vote, or as in the case of nations, one country one vote; BUT rule of the mighty.

So, the solution would be if every country would pay the UN their exdpense-shares in proportion with ther population or their GDP. That would justify the one man- one vote principle.This is the same for WB and IMF. If all countries would contribute proportionally to their GDP then there would be a rationale for some kind of one-man-one-vote decision.

Population or GDP? Which one do you want?

Or, more realistically, which one WOULD THE USA want?

Now, this no way means that US or Europe can not decide on a third world candidate if he or she is the best one to fill that position.

You mean the EU and/or USA decide that a third world candidate is good [for them], and give their nod, right?

As far as your last point is concerned, I was talking about their recommendation rather than them nominating themselves or others. Having said that, I would not mind having Sachs in that role. And thank you for the correction. Yes, it is Jeffrey. I should know, since he was the professor of both my daughter as well as my son-in-law and I have seen him in action.

Have you heard the name of Andrei Shleifer? Does the name David Lipton mean anything to you?

You might want to read William Easterly's criticism of Jeffrey's book "The White Man's Burden".

Fever Iam sure you would agree that in a democracy it is collective will represented by an individual representative who is in turn elected by the people. Different from dictatorship or autocracy. But even this does not mean that everyone can decide policy, the democratic setup entrusts the responsibility to an individual or a group to carry out their requirements and reserve the right to remove them from office by a vote of no confidence as well.

I think you are misconstruing the statement about Soviet system all that was being said is that even in the communist system it was not everyone voting on everything.

Any developmental bank needs funds and allocation of funds would be based on needs and return on investment (could be either monetary or otherwise for the investing/fund providing entities) therefore GDP and ability to contribute would determine control but conversly need and ability to provide maximum return on investment would also govern control dynamics.

It would be naieve to believe that sheer population can give that ability even if the populace is the most needy.

All banking systems (including ones founded on the principle of no interest) need to derive income from investment to be able to grow and provide returns to investors therefore lending by nations will be similar to lending to a small business or a individual the punt is on future returns, assesment of ability and intent to repay.

finally the names you've taken dont mean a thing to me and Iam not ashamed about it because I am willing to know more about them. Now if you consider that because you know about them and their work you are superior (which it seems to be) then so be it there are others who will share their knowledge more willingly....

[feverpitch]

The key point here is "democracy" does not mean everybody has the right to decide ( not express opinion) on eyerything that happens.

Then why call it so? Why not call it dictatorship, autocracy etc?

Banking and business in general is not done by "one man one vote rule". This was not even done by the Soviets during their Socialist Heaven days.

Where does the Soviet socialist heaven necessitate an entry into this discourse?

If you look at India today, that is one of our main problems. The states of Maharashtra and South India together provide more than half of India's tax revenues. And yet the Hindi Belt has more votes and the decisions related to anything and for for the channel of funds are taken by their desires and votes. And one can see where that has brought us.

Are you suggesting seccession of the Southern states?
Or would you prefer better governance and tax collection?

If you look at UN today, you can not complain about US bullying them. After all, they pay 25% of UN expenses. If I would hold 25% of of the stakes of a company, I would bully them too if they are inefficient.

So you do mean that democracy is not one man one vote, or as in the case of nations, one country one vote; BUT rule of the mighty.

So, the solution would be if every country would pay the UN their exdpense-shares in proportion with ther population or their GDP. That would justify the one man- one vote principle.This is the same for WB and IMF. If all countries would contribute proportionally to their GDP then there would be a rationale for some kind of one-man-one-vote decision.

Population or GDP? Which one do you want?
Or, more realistically, which one WOULD THE USA want?

Now, this no way means that US or Europe can not decide on a third world candidate if he or she is the best one to fill that position.

You mean the EU and/or USA decide that a third world candidate is good [for them], and give their nod, right?

As far as your last point is concerned, I was talking about their recommendation rather than them nominating themselves or others. Having said that, I would not mind having Sachs in that role. And thank you for the correction. Yes, it is Jeffrey. I should know, since he was the professor of both my daughter as well as my son-in-law and I have seen him in action.

Have you heard the name of Andrei Shleifer? Does the name David Lipton mean anything to you?
You might want to read William Easterly's criticism of Jeffrey's book "The White Man's Burden".

Fever I am sure you would agree that in a democracy it is collective will represented by an individual representative who is in turn elected by the people. Different from dictatorship or autocracy. But even this does not mean that everyone can decide policy, the democratic setup entrusts the responsibility to an individual or a group to carry out their requirements and reserve the right to remove them from office by a vote of no confidence as well.

Which is why the current electoral form of democracy is rotten, as I have pointed out elsewhere. It can be manipulated in many ways, esp if the requirement of huge sums of money for electoral campaign pre-deselects many worthy candidates.

I think you are misconstruing the statement about Soviet system all that was being said is that even in the communist system it was not everyone voting on everything.

I understand that. I took umbrage with the deliberate mocking tone used, esp bcoz there was no need of that.

Any developmental bank needs funds and allocation of funds would be based on needs and return on investment (could be either monetary or otherwise for the investing/fund providing entities) therefore GDP and ability to contribute would determine control but conversly need and ability to provide maximum return on investment would also govern control dynamics. 

Firstly, if a bank that calls itself a developmental bank has to only look after the bottom line... then it better call itself something else.

Secondly, which other bank imposes prior restrictions on how one operates their own economy before lending? But this is what IM Fund / W Bank have been consistently doing, and that too, only on third world countries, not on the First world countries.

Thirdly, do look at both: a. the rates of lending; and, b. the relative performances in terms of returning borrowed money by all the nations. I won't say more.

4thly, look at how the Fund/Bank has devastated the Lat Am countries. Forcefully meddling in the internal affairs of the countries, making them bend over backwards to open their economies to US MNCs, while protecting their own backyard all the time. It is not for nothing that the Chavez led bank of the South is taking off with so much good wishes.

It would be naieve to believe that sheer population can give that ability even if the populace is the most needy.
All banking systems (including ones founded on the principle of no interest) need to derive income from investment to be able to grow and provide returns to investors therefore lending by nations will be similar to lending to a small business or a individual the punt is on future returns, assesment of ability and intent to repay.

OK. Good. Then, why do they try investing mostly in poor nations? Let the WB remain a bank of the rich and let them invest in their countries. But that wont do. Which is why they come flocking like hyenas to invest in poor countries, buy off or otherwise contravene the democratic system in the poor countries, force them to accept unnecessary and ruinous terms etc. If your major business and profits is in the South, then u better have a prez who is a true representative of the South, instead of being a stooge of neo-imperialism.

finally the names you've taken dont mean a thing to me and I am not ashamed about it because I am willing to know more about them. Now if you consider that because you know about them and their work you are superior (which it seems to be) then so be it there are others who will share their knowledge more willingly....

You are completely mistaken in your reading of my intentionality while bandying about these names. To start with, I was not the one who started using 'names', it was Vincent, who used the names of Greenspan and Sachs.

Secondly, my reason for using the names of Shleifer and Lipton is because therein lies the sordid history of Sachs as a consultant, as opposed to an ivory tower academic theorist. As for Easterly, he provides a critique of Sachs economic theory from the right [and not the left, as one would expect one to do, coming from me  ].

I'm sure Colonel would be a far better person to inform you about Sachs and Schleifer, due to his personal interest in the matter, but I'll try my best.

But I'll have to start with Sachs, who was a long time instigator and supporter of the Polish Solidarity movement, in ways which would be surely considered destabilizing/ meddling into other country's affairs had it been done against the USA or any other country of the 'free world'. When the Berlin wall fell, Sachs became the economic advisor to the new govt, and along with the IMF agent David Lipton, who was a former student of Sachs as well; the Polish govt started reforming the economy using what was called 'shock therapy'. Foregoing common sense, they applied their ivory tower theory that instead of gradual changes, what the govt needed to do was make drastic reforms, selling every govt owned stock and asset piecemeal all at once in the expectation that after a short burst of inflation, the market and macroeconomic fundamentals would stabilize. Which is what happened. And everyone was gaga over the 'success'. What it obviously did not take into account is how the common man would be affected, which needless to say was devastating in effect. Anyway, thats another story.

Subsequently, Sachs and Schleifer were hired by the Yeltsin govt. to advice them on liberalization and macroeconomics, as representatives of USAID. When the US govt later investigated them, it was found out that they had indulged in selling off Russian assets in various shady deals, besides themselves and their wives investing in the stocks and the short term GKO bonds created as part of the sell off, whose eventual failure led to the repeated crises in the Russian economy in the 90s. Some call it anti semitic conspiracy, but the fact remains that all the Russian oil oligarchs were created during this period, and they are practically to the last man, jewish.

Sachs is also credited to having claimed that all the work he has done for various UN agencies were pro bono, but was later found to have accepted upwards of $75,000 a year, after which he formally stopped accepting these payments only in 2006.

Now if someone choses such a person as a paragon of virtue who should be invited to head a world body that will affect the lives and livelihood of millions of underpriviledged, then I'm really Bushed!

[sudzz]

The key point here is "democracy" does not mean everybody has the right to decide ( not express opinion) on eyerything that happens.

Then why call it so? Why not call it dictatorship, autocracy etc?

Banking and business in general is not done by "one man one vote rule". This was not even done by the Soviets during their Socialist Heaven days.

Where does the Soviet socialist heaven necessitate an entry into this discourse?

If you look at India today, that is one of our main problems. The states of Maharashtra and South India together provide more than half of India's tax revenues. And yet the Hindi Belt has more votes and the decisions related to anything and for for the channel of funds are taken by their desires and votes. And one can see where that has brought us.

Are you suggesting seccession of the Southern states?
Or would you prefer better governance and tax collection?

If you look at UN today, you can not complain about US bullying them. After all, they pay 25% of UN expenses. If I would hold 25% of of the stakes of a company, I would bully them too if they are inefficient.

So you do mean that democracy is not one man one vote, or as in the case of nations, one country one vote; BUT rule of the mighty.

So, the solution would be if every country would pay the UN their exdpense-shares in proportion with ther population or their GDP. That would justify the one man- one vote principle.This is the same for WB and IMF. If all countries would contribute proportionally to their GDP then there would be a rationale for some kind of one-man-one-vote decision.

Population or GDP? Which one do you want?
Or, more realistically, which one WOULD THE USA want?

Now, this no way means that US or Europe can not decide on a third world candidate if he or she is the best one to fill that position.

You mean the EU and/or USA decide that a third world candidate is good [for them], and give their nod, right?

As far as your last point is concerned, I was talking about their recommendation rather than them nominating themselves or others. Having said that, I would not mind having Sachs in that role. And thank you for the correction. Yes, it is Jeffrey. I should know, since he was the professor of both my daughter as well as my son-in-law and I have seen him in action.

Have you heard the name of Andrei Shleifer? Does the name David Lipton mean anything to you?
You might want to read William Easterly's criticism of Jeffrey's book "The White Man's Burden".

Fever I am sure you would agree that in a democracy it is collective will represented by an individual representative who is in turn elected by the people. Different from dictatorship or autocracy. But even this does not mean that everyone can decide policy, the democratic setup entrusts the responsibility to an individual or a group to carry out their requirements and reserve the right to remove them from office by a vote of no confidence as well.

Which is why the current electoral form of democracy is rotten, as I have pointed out elsewhere. It can be manipulated in many ways, esp if the requirement of huge sums of money for electoral campaign pre-deselects many worthy candidates.

I think you are misconstruing the statement about Soviet system all that was being said is that even in the communist system it was not everyone voting on everything.

I understand that. I took umbrage with the deliberate mocking tone used, esp bcoz there was no need of that.

Any developmental bank needs funds and allocation of funds would be based on needs and return on investment (could be either monetary or otherwise for the investing/fund providing entities) therefore GDP and ability to contribute would determine control but conversly need and ability to provide maximum return on investment would also govern control dynamics. 

Firstly, if a bank that calls itself a developmental bank has to only look after the bottom line... then it better call itself something else.

Secondly, which other bank imposes prior restrictions on how one operates their own economy before lending? But this is what IM Fund / W Bank have been consistently doing, and that too, only on third world countries, not on the First world countries.

Thirdly, do look at both: a. the rates of lending; and, b. the relative performances in terms of returning borrowed money by all the nations. I won't say more.

4thly, look at how the Fund/Bank has devastated the Lat Am countries. Forcefully meddling in the internal affairs of the countries, making them bend over backwards to open their economies to US MNCs, while protecting their own backyard all the time. It is not for nothing that the Chavez led bank of the South is taking off with so much good wishes.

It would be naieve to believe that sheer population can give that ability even if the populace is the most needy.
All banking systems (including ones founded on the principle of no interest) need to derive income from investment to be able to grow and provide returns to investors therefore lending by nations will be similar to lending to a small business or a individual the punt is on future returns, assesment of ability and intent to repay.

OK. Good. Then, why do they try investing mostly in poor nations? Let the WB remain a bank of the rich and let them invest in their countries. But that wont do. Which is why they come flocking like hyenas to invest in poor countries, buy off or otherwise contravene the democratic system in the poor countries, force them to accept unnecessary and ruinous terms etc. If your major business and profits is in the South, then u better have a prez who is a true representative of the South, instead of being a stooge of neo-imperialism.

finally the names you've taken dont mean a thing to me and I am not ashamed about it because I am willing to know more about them. Now if you consider that because you know about them and their work you are superior (which it seems to be) then so be it there are others who will share their knowledge more willingly....

You are completely mistaken in your reading of my intentionality while bandying about these names. To start with, I was not the one who started using 'names', it was Vincent, who used the names of Greenspan and Sachs.

Secondly, my reason for using the names of Shleifer and Lipton is because therein lies the sordid history of Sachs as a consultant, as opposed to an ivory tower academic theorist. As for Easterly, he provides a critique of Sachs economic theory from the right [and not the left, as one would expect one to do, coming from me  ].

I'm sure Colonel would be a far better person to inform you about Sachs and Schleifer, due to his personal interest in the matter, but I'll try my best.

But I'll have to start with Sachs, who was a long time instigator and supporter of the Polish Solidarity movement, in ways which would be surely considered destabilizing/ meddling into other country's affairs had it been done against the USA or any other country of the 'free world'. When the Berlin wall fell, Sachs became the economic advisor to the new govt, and along with the IMF agent David Lipton, who was a former student of Sachs as well; the Polish govt started reforming the economy using what was called 'shock therapy'. Foregoing common sense, they applied their ivory tower theory that instead of gradual changes, what the govt needed to do was make drastic reforms, selling every govt owned stock and asset piecemeal all at once in the expectation that after a short burst of inflation, the market and macroeconomic fundamentals would stabilize. Which is what happened. And everyone was gaga over the 'success'. What it obviously did not take into account is how the common man would be affected, which needless to say was devastating in effect. Anyway, thats another story.

Subsequently, Sachs and Schleifer were hired by the Yeltsin govt. to advice them on liberalization and macroeconomics, as representatives of USAID. When the US govt later investigated them, it was found out that they had indulged in selling off Russian assets in various shady deals, besides themselves and their wives investing in the stocks and the short term GKO bonds created as part of the sell off, whose eventual failure led to the repeated crises in the Russian economy in the 90s.

Sachs is also credited to having claimed that all the work he has done for various UN agencies were pro bono, but was later found to have accepted upwards of $75,000 a year, after which he formally stopped accepting these payments only in 2006.

Now if someone choses such a person as a paragon of virtue who should be invited to head a world body that will affect the lives and livelihood of millions of underpriviledged, then I'm really Bushed!

Firstly applause for your post that clearly reflects the time you put in and your intent of startnig these threads...

Iam at work now and dont have the time to respond in detail but will post after about 4-6 hours -hopefully even then this thread remains the way it is....

Once again good post above..

[feverpitch]

Danke, sudzz...

I'll wait for ur response. I'm sure that not many else [esp ones with whom I've been arguing before on this thread and elsewhere on similar issues] will show the honesty to turn up though. All they are interested in is riding pillion in their attempts to drag me down... Bunch of fawns and back bone less wimps!

[feverpitch]

I did expect the silence of the lambs, and I have not been disappointed so far.

[sudzz]

The key point here is "democracy" does not mean everybody has the right to decide ( not express opinion) on eyerything that happens.

Then why call it so? Why not call it dictatorship, autocracy etc?

Banking and business in general is not done by "one man one vote rule". This was not even done by the Soviets during their Socialist Heaven days.

Where does the Soviet socialist heaven necessitate an entry into this discourse?

If you look at India today, that is one of our main problems. The states of Maharashtra and South India together provide more than half of India's tax revenues. And yet the Hindi Belt has more votes and the decisions related to anything and for for the channel of funds are taken by their desires and votes. And one can see where that has brought us.

Are you suggesting seccession of the Southern states?
Or would you prefer better governance and tax collection?

If you look at UN today, you can not complain about US bullying them. After all, they pay 25% of UN expenses. If I would hold 25% of of the stakes of a company, I would bully them too if they are inefficient.

So you do mean that democracy is not one man one vote, or as in the case of nations, one country one vote; BUT rule of the mighty.

So, the solution would be if every country would pay the UN their exdpense-shares in proportion with ther population or their GDP. That would justify the one man- one vote principle.This is the same for WB and IMF. If all countries would contribute proportionally to their GDP then there would be a rationale for some kind of one-man-one-vote decision.

Population or GDP? Which one do you want?
Or, more realistically, which one WOULD THE USA want?

Now, this no way means that US or Europe can not decide on a third world candidate if he or she is the best one to fill that position.

You mean the EU and/or USA decide that a third world candidate is good [for them], and give their nod, right?

As far as your last point is concerned, I was talking about their recommendation rather than them nominating themselves or others. Having said that, I would not mind having Sachs in that role. And thank you for the correction. Yes, it is Jeffrey. I should know, since he was the professor of both my daughter as well as my son-in-law and I have seen him in action.

Have you heard the name of Andrei Shleifer? Does the name David Lipton mean anything to you?
You might want to read William Easterly's criticism of Jeffrey's book "The White Man's Burden".

Fever I am sure you would agree that in a democracy it is collective will represented by an individual representative who is in turn elected by the people. Different from dictatorship or autocracy. But even this does not mean that everyone can decide policy, the democratic setup entrusts the responsibility to an individual or a group to carry out their requirements and reserve the right to remove them from office by a vote of no confidence as well.

Which is why the current electoral form of democracy is rotten, as I have pointed out elsewhere. It can be manipulated in many ways, esp if the requirement of huge sums of money for electoral campaign pre-deselects many worthy candidates.

I think you are misconstruing the statement about Soviet system all that was being said is that even in the communist system it was not everyone voting on everything.

I understand that. I took umbrage with the deliberate mocking tone used, esp bcoz there was no need of that.

Any developmental bank needs funds and allocation of funds would be based on needs and return on investment (could be either monetary or otherwise for the investing/fund providing entities) therefore GDP and ability to contribute would determine control but conversly need and ability to provide maximum return on investment would also govern control dynamics. 

Firstly, if a bank that calls itself a developmental bank has to only look after the bottom line... then it better call itself something else.

Secondly, which other bank imposes prior restrictions on how one operates their own economy before lending? But this is what IM Fund / W Bank have been consistently doing, and that too, only on third world countries, not on the First world countries.

Thirdly, do look at both: a. the rates of lending; and, b. the relative performances in terms of returning borrowed money by all the nations. I won't say more.

4thly, look at how the Fund/Bank has devastated the Lat Am countries. Forcefully meddling in the internal affairs of the countries, making them bend over backwards to open their economies to US MNCs, while protecting their own backyard all the time. It is not for nothing that the Chavez led bank of the South is taking off with so much good wishes.

It would be naieve to believe that sheer population can give that ability even if the populace is the most needy.
All banking systems (including ones founded on the principle of no interest) need to derive income from investment to be able to grow and provide returns to investors therefore lending by nations will be similar to lending to a small business or a individual the punt is on future returns, assesment of ability and intent to repay.

OK. Good. Then, why do they try investing mostly in poor nations? Let the WB remain a bank of the rich and let them invest in their countries. But that wont do. Which is why they come flocking like hyenas to invest in poor countries, buy off or otherwise contravene the democratic system in the poor countries, force them to accept unnecessary and ruinous terms etc. If your major business and profits is in the South, then u better have a prez who is a true representative of the South, instead of being a stooge of neo-imperialism.

finally the names you've taken dont mean a thing to me and I am not ashamed about it because I am willing to know more about them. Now if you consider that because you know about them and their work you are superior (which it seems to be) then so be it there are others who will share their knowledge more willingly....

You are completely mistaken in your reading of my intentionality while bandying about these names. To start with, I was not the one who started using 'names', it was Vincent, who used the names of Greenspan and Sachs.

Secondly, my reason for using the names of Shleifer and Lipton is because therein lies the sordid history of Sachs as a consultant, as opposed to an ivory tower academic theorist. As for Easterly, he provides a critique of Sachs economic theory from the right [and not the left, as one would expect one to do, coming from me  ].

I'm sure Colonel would be a far better person to inform you about Sachs and Schleifer, due to his personal interest in the matter, but I'll try my best.

But I'll have to start with Sachs, who was a long time instigator and supporter of the Polish Solidarity movement, in ways which would be surely considered destabilizing/ meddling into other country's affairs had it been done against the USA or any other country of the 'free world'. When the Berlin wall fell, Sachs became the economic advisor to the new govt, and along with the IMF agent David Lipton, who was a former student of Sachs as well; the Polish govt started reforming the economy using what was called 'shock therapy'. Foregoing common sense, they applied their ivory tower theory that instead of gradual changes, what the govt needed to do was make drastic reforms, selling every govt owned stock and asset piecemeal all at once in the expectation that after a short burst of inflation, the market and macroeconomic fundamentals would stabilize. Which is what happened. And everyone was gaga over the 'success'. What it obviously did not take into account is how the common man would be affected, which needless to say was devastating in effect. Anyway, thats another story.

Subsequently, Sachs and Schleifer were hired by the Yeltsin govt. to advice them on liberalization and macroeconomics, as representatives of USAID. When the US govt later investigated them, it was found out that they had indulged in selling off Russian assets in various shady deals, besides themselves and their wives investing in the stocks and the short term GKO bonds created as part of the sell off, whose eventual failure led to the repeated crises in the Russian economy in the 90s. Some call it anti semitic conspiracy, but the fact remains that all the Russian oil oligarchs were created during this period, and they are practically to the last man, jewish.

Sachs is also credited to having claimed that all the work he has done for various UN agencies were pro bono, but was later found to have accepted upwards of $75,000 a year, after which he formally stopped accepting these payments only in 2006.

Now if someone choses such a person as a paragon of virtue who should be invited to head a world body that will affect the lives and livelihood of millions of underpriviledged, then I'm really Bushed!

Completely agree that this current form of democratic elections is not the best but is probably the most optimum in terms of deliverin to the people what they deserve. This is a system prone to manipulation and has been proven to be so in advanced nations as well as backward nations yet I dont there is any alternative that even comes close to the fairness that this system can deliver.

Developmental bank or otherwise there has to be a bottom line focus, the bottom line being defined differently for different type of organisations. The WB/IMF should count amongst its bottom line the Human Growth Index, basic levels of living as defined in the UN charter, development of economies as either provider or consumers of services for other nations to benefit from.

In that sense these guys are like the VISA's and MasterCards of the development business, their role is to provide the infrastructre and bandwidth for growth, use their collative powers to secure funds from stronger areas and deploy them in weaker areas but with a strict caveat on how the funds are to be used, for what purpose and for how long and with what rate of repayment.

They should and they do hold the right to defer, waive, reposses etc the loans given by them.


I think I did answer this point above

Finally my personal point of view is that these guys IMF/WB/ADB etc serve a purpose, this purpose is ostensibly to help redeploy funds for equitable distribution of wealth etc, but in reality the fund owner controls the purse strings and will release only when he does not precieve a threat to his interests.

Take oil away from Chavez he also has nothing, the only leader I admire in all this is Castro (though by now you know that Iam as right as you are left) thats a country that has defied odds and most people from afar seem to be in love with their leader a system that was working very well and providing basic health care, education etc at a fairly reasonable price.

[feverpitch]

The key point here is "democracy" does not mean everybody has the right to decide ( not express opinion) on eyerything that happens.

Then why call it so? Why not call it dictatorship, autocracy etc?

Banking and business in general is not done by "one man one vote rule". This was not even done by the Soviets during their Socialist Heaven days.

Where does the Soviet socialist heaven necessitate an entry into this discourse?

If you look at India today, that is one of our main problems. The states of Maharashtra and South India together provide more than half of India's tax revenues. And yet the Hindi Belt has more votes and the decisions related to anything and for for the channel of funds are taken by their desires and votes. And one can see where that has brought us.

Are you suggesting seccession of the Southern states?
Or would you prefer better governance and tax collection?

If you look at UN today, you can not complain about US bullying them. After all, they pay 25% of UN expenses. If I would hold 25% of of the stakes of a company, I would bully them too if they are inefficient.

So you do mean that democracy is not one man one vote, or as in the case of nations, one country one vote; BUT rule of the mighty.

So, the solution would be if every country would pay the UN their exdpense-shares in proportion with ther population or their GDP. That would justify the one man- one vote principle.This is the same for WB and IMF. If all countries would contribute proportionally to their GDP then there would be a rationale for some kind of one-man-one-vote decision.

Population or GDP? Which one do you want?
Or, more realistically, which one WOULD THE USA want?

Now, this no way means that US or Europe can not decide on a third world candidate if he or she is the best one to fill that position.

You mean the EU and/or USA decide that a third world candidate is good [for them], and give their nod, right?

As far as your last point is concerned, I was talking about their recommendation rather than them nominating themselves or others. Having said that, I would not mind having Sachs in that role. And thank you for the correction. Yes, it is Jeffrey. I should know, since he was the professor of both my daughter as well as my son-in-law and I have seen him in action.

Have you heard the name of Andrei Shleifer? Does the name David Lipton mean anything to you?
You might want to read William Easterly's criticism of Jeffrey's book "The White Man's Burden".

Fever I am sure you would agree that in a democracy it is collective will represented by an individual representative who is in turn elected by the people. Different from dictatorship or autocracy. But even this does not mean that everyone can decide policy, the democratic setup entrusts the responsibility to an individual or a group to carry out their requirements and reserve the right to remove them from office by a vote of no confidence as well.

Which is why the current electoral form of democracy is rotten, as I have pointed out elsewhere. It can be manipulated in many ways, esp if the requirement of huge sums of money for electoral campaign pre-deselects many worthy candidates.

I think you are misconstruing the statement about Soviet system all that was being said is that even in the communist system it was not everyone voting on everything.

I understand that. I took umbrage with the deliberate mocking tone used, esp bcoz there was no need of that.

Any developmental bank needs funds and allocation of funds would be based on needs and return on investment (could be either monetary or otherwise for the investing/fund providing entities) therefore GDP and ability to contribute would determine control but conversly need and ability to provide maximum return on investment would also govern control dynamics. 

Firstly, if a bank that calls itself a developmental bank has to only look after the bottom line... then it better call itself something else.

Secondly, which other bank imposes prior restrictions on how one operates their own economy before lending? But this is what IM Fund / W Bank have been consistently doing, and that too, only on third world countries, not on the First world countries.

Thirdly, do look at both: a. the rates of lending; and, b. the relative performances in terms of returning borrowed money by all the nations. I won't say more.

4thly, look at how the Fund/Bank has devastated the Lat Am countries. Forcefully meddling in the internal affairs of the countries, making them bend over backwards to open their economies to US MNCs, while protecting their own backyard all the time. It is not for nothing that the Chavez led bank of the South is taking off with so much good wishes.

It would be naieve to believe that sheer population can give that ability even if the populace is the most needy.
All banking systems (including ones founded on the principle of no interest) need to derive income from investment to be able to grow and provide returns to investors therefore lending by nations will be similar to lending to a small business or a individual the punt is on future returns, assesment of ability and intent to repay.

OK. Good. Then, why do they try investing mostly in poor nations? Let the WB remain a bank of the rich and let them invest in their countries. But that wont do. Which is why they come flocking like hyenas to invest in poor countries, buy off or otherwise contravene the democratic system in the poor countries, force them to accept unnecessary and ruinous terms etc. If your major business and profits is in the South, then u better have a prez who is a true representative of the South, instead of being a stooge of neo-imperialism.

finally the names you've taken dont mean a thing to me and I am not ashamed about it because I am willing to know more about them. Now if you consider that because you know about them and their work you are superior (which it seems to be) then so be it there are others who will share their knowledge more willingly....

You are completely mistaken in your reading of my intentionality while bandying about these names. To start with, I was not the one who started using 'names', it was Vincent, who used the names of Greenspan and Sachs.

Secondly, my reason for using the names of Shleifer and Lipton is because therein lies the sordid history of Sachs as a consultant, as opposed to an ivory tower academic theorist. As for Easterly, he provides a critique of Sachs economic theory from the right [and not the left, as one would expect one to do, coming from me  ].

I'm sure Colonel would be a far better person to inform you about Sachs and Schleifer, due to his personal interest in the matter, but I'll try my best.

But I'll have to start with Sachs, who was a long time instigator and supporter of the Polish Solidarity movement, in ways which would be surely considered destabilizing/ meddling into other country's affairs had it been done against the USA or any other country of the 'free world'. When the Berlin wall fell, Sachs became the economic advisor to the new govt, and along with the IMF agent David Lipton, who was a former student of Sachs as well; the Polish govt started reforming the economy using what was called 'shock therapy'. Foregoing common sense, they applied their ivory tower theory that instead of gradual changes, what the govt needed to do was make drastic reforms, selling every govt owned stock and asset piecemeal all at once in the expectation that after a short burst of inflation, the market and macroeconomic fundamentals would stabilize. Which is what happened. And everyone was gaga over the 'success'. What it obviously did not take into account is how the common man would be affected, which needless to say was devastating in effect. Anyway, thats another story.

Subsequently, Sachs and Schleifer were hired by the Yeltsin govt. to advice them on liberalization and macroeconomics, as representatives of USAID. When the US govt later investigated them, it was found out that they had indulged in selling off Russian assets in various shady deals, besides themselves and their wives investing in the stocks and the short term GKO bonds created as part of the sell off, whose eventual failure led to the repeated crises in the Russian economy in the 90s. Some call it anti semitic conspiracy, but the fact remains that all the Russian oil oligarchs were created during this period, and they are practically to the last man, jewish.

Sachs is also credited to having claimed that all the work he has done for various UN agencies were pro bono, but was later found to have accepted upwards of $75,000 a year, after which he formally stopped accepting these payments only in 2006.

Now if someone choses such a person as a paragon of virtue who should be invited to head a world body that will affect the lives and livelihood of millions of underpriviledged, then I'm really Bushed!

Completely agree that this current form of democratic elections is not the best but is probably the most optimum in terms of deliverin to the people what they deserve. This is a system prone to manipulation and has been proven to be so in advanced nations as well as backward nations yet I dont there is any alternative that even comes close to the fairness that this system can deliver.

I've talked about a possible alternative in another thread where u had taken part. In shorthand, its called 'direct democracy'.

Developmental bank or otherwise there has to be a bottom line focus, the bottom line being defined differently for different type of organisations. The WB/IMF should count amongst its bottom line the Human Growth Index, basic levels of living as defined in the UN charter, development of economies as either provider or consumers of services for other nations to benefit from.

I understand that bottomlines could mean a lot of things, though I think it was easy to understand that here I meant the profit. And I don't believe that a bank that is run solely on the profit motive should be called a development bank.

Finally, even if they did take the above factors into consideration, I doubt if they give them enough weight in comparison to their thrust for structural adjustments and keeping to the deadlines of repayment.

In that sense these guys are like the VISA's and MasterCards of the development business, their role is to provide the infrastructre and bandwidth for growth, use their collative powers to secure funds from stronger areas and deploy them in weaker areas but with a strict caveat on how the funds are to be used, for what purpose and for how long and with what rate of repayment.
They should and they do hold the right to defer, waive, reposses etc the loans given by them.
[/color][/b]

For starters, do watch the following PBS documentary on the history of the credit card. Its illuminating, and useful.

http://www.question911.com/linkout2.php?filename=Secret%20History%20of%20the%20Credit%20Card%201of2.wmv
http://www.question911.com/linkout2.php?filename=Secret%20History%20of%20the%20Credit%20Card%202of2.wmv

Your above definition of the Fund/Bank clearly points out to the overwhelming emphasis on the profit motive by these two bodies. If so, in my opinion, such structures should be abhorred, and alternatives, like the Bank of the South be thought of.

I think I did answer this point above

No you didn't. Please explain why the peoples and countries who contribute to the maximum profit for the banks should not have any stake in the running of the same. As the equivalents of stakeholders [as in management speak], shouldn't they have a strong say?

Finally my personal point of view is that these guys IMF/WB/ADB etc serve a purpose, this purpose is ostensibly to help redeploy funds for equitable distribution of wealth etc, but in reality the fund owner controls the purse strings and will release only when he does not precieve a threat to his interests.

Glad you agree.

Take oil away from Chavez he also has nothing, the only leader I admire in all this is Castro (though by now you know that Iam as right as you are left) thats a country that has defied odds and most people from afar seem to be in love with their leader a system that was working very well and providing basic health care, education etc at a fairly reasonable price.

Would you ask me to take away the nukes from Bush and then discuss his swagger?

[toney]

Have you heard the name of Andrei Shleifer? Does the name David Lipton mean anything to you?

You might want to read William Easterly's criticism of Jeffrey's book "The White Man's Burden".

TheWall,
Please note these down. I shall ask you about them in a pop-quiz later on.

Any particular reason you've decided to ruin a perfectly fine thread?

I know that if I am not quick enough, you will do the honours.