Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Trans-Pacific Partnership looks like a giant step toward the end of sovereign nations. [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)43. The TPP be the end of the Bretton Woods? The intent of FDR's 1944 conference is still alive.
The Bretton Woods Conference took place in July 1944, but some of its core accords did not become operative until December 1958, when all European currencies became convertible. The IMF was developed as a permanent international body. The summary of agreements states, "The nations should consult and agree on international monetary changes which affect each other. They should outlaw practices which are agreed to be harmful to world prosperity, and they should assist each other to overcome short-term exchange difficulties." The IBRD was created to speed up post-war reconstruction, to aid political stability, and to foster peace. This was to be fulfilled through the establishment of programs for reconstruction and development.
The main terms of this agreement were:
Encouraging open markets
The seminal idea behind the Bretton Woods Conference was the notion of open markets. In Henry Morgenthau's farewell remarks at the conference, he stated that the establishment of the IMF and the World Bank marked the end of economic nationalism. This meant countries would maintain their national interest, but trade blocks and economic spheres of influence would no longer be their means. The second idea behind the Bretton Woods Conference was joint management of the Western political-economic order, meaning that the foremost industrial democratic nations must lower barriers to trade and the movement of capital, in addition to their responsibility to govern the system.
Failed proposal
International Trade Organization
The Conference also proposed the creation of an International Trade Organization (ITO) to establish rules and regulations for international trade. The ITO would have complemented the other two Bretton Woods proposed international bodies: the IMF and the World Bank. The ITO charter was agreed on at the U.N. Conference on Trade and Employment (held in Havana, Cuba, in March 1948), but the charter was not ratified by the U.S. Senate. As a result, the ITO never came into existence. However, in 1995, during the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations established the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the replacement body for GATT. The GATT principles and agreements were adopted by the WTO, which was charged with administering and extending them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monetary_and_Financial_Conference
The main terms of this agreement were:
Formation of the IMF and the IBRD, which is today part of the World Bank.
Adjustably pegged foreign exchange market rate system: The exchange rates were fixed, with the provision of changing them if necessary.
Currencies were required to be convertible for trade related and other current account transactions.
As it was possible that exchange rates thus established might not be favourable to a country's balance of payments position, the governments had the power to revise them by up to 10%.
All member countries were required to subscribe to the IMF's capital.
Encouraging open markets
The seminal idea behind the Bretton Woods Conference was the notion of open markets. In Henry Morgenthau's farewell remarks at the conference, he stated that the establishment of the IMF and the World Bank marked the end of economic nationalism. This meant countries would maintain their national interest, but trade blocks and economic spheres of influence would no longer be their means. The second idea behind the Bretton Woods Conference was joint management of the Western political-economic order, meaning that the foremost industrial democratic nations must lower barriers to trade and the movement of capital, in addition to their responsibility to govern the system.
Failed proposal
International Trade Organization
The Conference also proposed the creation of an International Trade Organization (ITO) to establish rules and regulations for international trade. The ITO would have complemented the other two Bretton Woods proposed international bodies: the IMF and the World Bank. The ITO charter was agreed on at the U.N. Conference on Trade and Employment (held in Havana, Cuba, in March 1948), but the charter was not ratified by the U.S. Senate. As a result, the ITO never came into existence. However, in 1995, during the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations established the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the replacement body for GATT. The GATT principles and agreements were adopted by the WTO, which was charged with administering and extending them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monetary_and_Financial_Conference
The Bretton Woods conference in July, 1944 was FDR's effort to restructure post-war international politics and economics so that it was more multilaterally run by international organizations like the UN, IMF, World Bank and the ITO. The ITO was rejected by the republican senate as too injurious to national sovereignty but eventually came into being 50 years later in the form of the WTO.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
163 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The Trans-Pacific Partnership looks like a giant step toward the end of sovereign nations. [View all]
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
OP
Yes I can see how those that support Wall Street would support Clinton-Sachs. nm
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#91
Do you think that H. Clinton-Sachs is a progressive? Do you think her close ties with
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#118
By whose definition is H. Clinton a progressive? Does she support FDR type regulations?
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#120
See you're already doing it." Nyah nyah I deal with facts. You're just making stuff up."
Armstead
Jan 2014
#133
Do I understand you to say that you think that the TPP and NAFTA are progressive? nm
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#146
Socially progressive -- But a corporate conservative on issues of money and power
Armstead
Jan 2014
#125
That does. I will never support her, wouldn't have anyway because of her support for War, but that
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#92
I agree. Now is the time to make it clear that if Dems push her they will lose. So they better start
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#97
They need to own their shit, their wars and their selling out the middle class.
NYC_SKP
Jan 2014
#105
Exactly. And in many ways it's our fault too for looking the other way because the alternative is
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#117
Is this a rhetorical question implying that anyone who thinks there is a "they"
ChisolmTrailDem
Jan 2014
#56
The right is all over the "One World Government" and FTA's and the WTO (One World Economy?)
pampango
Jan 2014
#42
I was once surprised to hear a Canadian say that NAFTA "only benefited the US"..
whathehell
Jan 2014
#109
The poll does not have anything to do with the TPP. The far right believes it is the 'liberal elite'
pampango
Jan 2014
#112
Perhaps not. But we share little in terms of the tea party world view, I suspect.
pampango
Jan 2014
#136
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't our international treaties and agreements almost always
pampango
Jan 2014
#138
So where is this leading? Will there be one world government run by someone chosen by the
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#11
Whoever is really running the show has 30,000 armed Drones coming to watch you where you live/work.
blkmusclmachine
Jan 2014
#24
No one in power is worried about the American Empire. They are looking to a World government.
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#13
They get their empire via these trade agreements, it's just not the American Empire.
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#29
Harnessing the US military and infrastructure but above all of us (is what I suspect).
FiveGoodMen
Jan 2014
#69
They (our politicians) are expecting to be taken care of after they destroy our country.
indie9197
Jan 2014
#38
The TPP be the end of the Bretton Woods? The intent of FDR's 1944 conference is still alive.
pampango
Jan 2014
#43
Of Course It Is... They Just Don't Know How To Explain It, Without Using The Word FASCISM...
WillyT
Jan 2014
#16
Right Wing Watch: The NAFTA Superhighway and North American Union are far-right conspiracy theories
pampango
Jan 2014
#41
Remember when the GOP blocked the UN disabilities treaty in the Senate in 2012?
Cali_Democrat
Jan 2014
#145
There is a huge divide between the republican base and politicians on NAFTA and 'free trade'
pampango
Jan 2014
#115
So you provide graphs to illustrate how the trade treaties have killed the USA
brentspeak
Jan 2014
#122
The graphs show US manufacturing employment has been declining since 1955. What "trade treaties"
pampango
Jan 2014
#135
Thanks for not anwering the question. The 40 year decline in manufacturing jobs did not
pampango
Jan 2014
#152
No doubt but this is still a pretty significant actual legal advancement of that conclusion.
TheKentuckian
Jan 2014
#123
I don't see how really. We'd have to be of a mind to pretty much go rogue, drop out of the WTO,
TheKentuckian
Jan 2014
#162
I Agree, Sir: This Is 'Corporate Sovereignity', And It Is An Abomination
The Magistrate
Jan 2014
#37
Selective examples. Try Singapore for a "country" that "trades the most." Like 270% of its GDP.
El_Johns
Jan 2014
#100
Singapore and Hong Kong are essentially city-states but your point about the importance of
pampango
Jan 2014
#113
This was the ultimate goal of world elites all along. Now resource/energy control can proceed
ancianita
Jan 2014
#68
Yes. The beginning of the end of nation-states, and the change to corporate-states.
JDPriestly
Jan 2014
#72
Yes, more or less. The American Revolutionary War was between the colonies and
rhett o rick
Jan 2014
#156
I feel that a World Parliament would be a good first step, particularly if we want...
Humanist_Activist
Jan 2014
#99
First off no, second off, learn how to spell corporate if you want to try to be condescending...
Humanist_Activist
Jan 2014
#111
The US says it wants to "expand democratic values" but does the opposite
solarhydrocan
Jan 2014
#114