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

malaise

(298,301 posts)
12. Partly true but I'm thinking more of the multilaterals
Sun Feb 28, 2016, 06:45 PM
Feb 2016

as in IMF, World Bank, WTO and GATT. WTO and GATT are more recent. Essentially they facilitate the right of corporations over citizens and governments.

I would argue that Bretton Woods created the foundation for the entire neo-liberal project and when White rejected Keynes proposal, the stage was set for today's mess.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/18/lord-keynes-international-monetary-fund

Keynes proposed that any country racking up a large trade deficit (equating to more than half of its bancor overdraft allowance) would be charged interest on its account. It would also be obliged to reduce the value of its currency and to prevent the export of capital. But - and this was the key to his system - he insisted that the nations with a trade surplus would be subject to similar pressures. Any country with a bancor credit balance that was more than half the size of its overdraft facility would be charged interest, at a rate of 10%. It would also be obliged to increase the value of its currency and to permit the export of capital. If, by the end of the year, its credit balance exceeded the total value of its permitted overdraft, the surplus would be confiscated. The nations with a surplus would have a powerful incentive to get rid of it. In doing so, they would automatically clear other nations' deficits.
Advertisement

When Keynes began to explain his idea, in papers published in 1942 and 1943, it detonated in the minds of all who read it. The British economist Lionel Robbins reported that "it would be difficult to exaggerate the electrifying effect on thought throughout the whole relevant apparatus of government ... nothing so imaginative and so ambitious had ever been discussed". Economists all over the world saw that Keynes had cracked it. As the Allies prepared for the Bretton Woods conference, Britain adopted Keynes's solution as its official negotiating position.

But there was one country - at the time the world's biggest creditor - in which his proposal was less welcome. The head of the American delegation at Bretton Woods, Harry Dexter White, responded to Keynes's idea thus: "We have been perfectly adamant on that point. We have taken the position of absolutely no." Instead he proposed an International Stabilisation Fund, which would place the entire burden of maintaining the balance of trade on the deficit nations. It would impose no limits on the surplus that successful exporters could accumulate. He also suggested an International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which would provide capital for economic reconstruction after the war. White, backed by the financial clout of the US treasury, prevailed. The International Stabilisation Fund became the International Monetary Fund. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development remains the principal lending arm of the World Bank.

The consequences, especially for the poorest indebted countries, have been catastrophic. Acting on behalf of the rich, imposing conditions that no free country would tolerate, the IMF has bled them dry. As Joseph Stiglitz has shown, the fund compounds existing economic crises and creates crises where none existed before. It has destabilised exchange rates, exacerbated balance of payments problems, forced countries into debt and recession, wrecked public services and destroyed the jobs and incomes of tens of millions of people.
-----------------------------------
The IMF and World Bank orthodoxy over-ruled all that was Keynesian. Strangely it is the big Western countries who control the leadership and everything else related to these agencies.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I don't want trade agreements if they restrict communities from acting locally in their best Ed Suspicious Feb 2016 #1
What I want to know is this.... Bubzer Feb 2016 #3
The early 90s with NAFTA and WTO GATS. They were/are the two prototypes for US-style FTAs. Baobab Feb 2016 #14
Can you think of a better Republican whinefest Gabi Hayes Feb 2016 #4
The republican base has wanted the US out of the WTO (and the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and pampango Feb 2016 #5
The WTO is like the Mafia, you can't just leave. they know that, Thats just an act. Baobab Feb 2016 #16
Bernie was co-sponsor of a bill in 2005 to have the US withdraw from the WTO. pampango Feb 2016 #20
Yes, i totally support Bernie Sanders- Okay, here the section is GATS Article XXI procedure. Baobab Feb 2016 #29
None of your links have anything to do with "To leave the US would have to compensate the injured pampango Feb 2016 #39
USA!! USA!! Spreading democracy...or, something. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2016 #2
as I understand it, India can still build its own solar power industry RussBLib Feb 2016 #6
You're correct. This article is highly misleading. First, the WTO is a voluntary agreement and okaawhatever Feb 2016 #13
You are correct and I want the truth rather than talking point. Jim Beard Feb 2016 #28
Thanks for that. I'm going to read the article now. nt okaawhatever Feb 2016 #30
More BS by the BS fans, no doubt. looks like a win for the US to me. Jitter65 Feb 2016 #15
Exporting LNG may cause a lot of homelessness-as well as a building boomlet in the US Baobab Feb 2016 #17
"Where have you been the last 20 years?" (Joking) (thats okay, I know.. here!) Baobab Feb 2016 #31
The WTO is a paper tiger. closeupready Feb 2016 #7
Are you kidding? India signed the agreement to prevent exactly this from occurring. randome Feb 2016 #9
No, I'm not kidding. The WTO does NOT enforce their rulings. closeupready Feb 2016 #11
Sure they do, look at the WTO US Online Gambling Case Baobab Feb 2016 #18
Which remained unenforced. So you reinforce my point. closeupready Feb 2016 #21
All international agencies are tools malaise Feb 2016 #8
And few of those international agencies existed under Herbert Hoover. FDR started pampango Feb 2016 #10
Partly true but I'm thinking more of the multilaterals malaise Feb 2016 #12
The real point is that prior to FDR, none of these international institutions existed. Under Herbert pampango Feb 2016 #19
FDR was in a world of 100% tariffs. jeff47 Feb 2016 #26
"The solutions for a 100% tariff world are not necessarily the solutions for a 0% tariff world."Good pampango Feb 2016 #38
Good response ut in diminishing the role of excessive nationalism malaise Feb 2016 #33
FDR and Truman proposed and supported the diminishment of 'national sovereigty' represented by pampango Feb 2016 #36
True but members of the 'club' are often given a pass malaise Feb 2016 #37
Obama Administration and india sending message to disregard Bernie and his talk about Baobab Feb 2016 #32
Wow, you're going to be really surprised and disappointed to find out where Sanders stands on this Recursion Feb 2016 #34
If you think this is about Obama malaise Feb 2016 #35
IMO this ruling is probably good for India LittleBlue Feb 2016 #22
our doesn't destroy their industry . it just means they compete with foreigners JI7 Feb 2016 #23
Who're you kidding... they'll be undercut by companies with old money. Bubzer Feb 2016 #24
isn't this a new industry ? one problem in India was lack of competition and JI7 Feb 2016 #25
It's a new industry, yes... lacking much in the way of support... Bubzer Feb 2016 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»U.S. Wins WTO Case to des...»Reply #12