The IMF and Irresponsibility, Qu'elle Surprise !
Why the surprise?
The IMF should have been liquidated with the end of the gold exchange period after Nixon pulled out in 1971 in order inflate to fight the vietnam "war" (are we calling it a war yet or is it still a "police action"?). The IMF's purpose was to facilitate the gold exchange, so when that ended so should have the IMF's existence. But no (and the whole fixed exchange rates thing of the Bretton Woods was unsustainable, as all fixed prices are in the long run, with, usually, someone, someone wealthy with lots of patient capital, making a fortune when the dam does break).
Now the International Monetary Fund is in business to bail out nation-states that are irresponsible in their fiscal and monetary policies. And as a fun highlight, keeping people in power in irresponsible countries longer than they should be, suppressing dynamic change and economic and social liberty.
It shouldn't be too surprising then that the person in charge (and who elected him Workers wants to know?) of rewarding this irresponsible behaviour of promising to the populace more than the populace is willing to pay in taxes, and then not being able to make the interest payments on the debt unless getting a bailout from the IMF? Why should the person in charge of bailing-out the international monopoly-capital power structure (those staying in $3,000 per night hotelrooms on the taxpayers' dollars and yen and pound etc.) not act in a corrupt manner in his private life (if indeed he did, innocent until proven guilty, but the point here is that it should not come as surprise)? He is above the law is he not, because, well is international law really enforceable? No.
The IMF should have been liquidated with the end of the gold exchange period after Nixon pulled out in 1971 in order inflate to fight the vietnam "war" (are we calling it a war yet or is it still a "police action"?). The IMF's purpose was to facilitate the gold exchange, so when that ended so should have the IMF's existence. But no (and the whole fixed exchange rates thing of the Bretton Woods was unsustainable, as all fixed prices are in the long run, with, usually, someone, someone wealthy with lots of patient capital, making a fortune when the dam does break).
Now the International Monetary Fund is in business to bail out nation-states that are irresponsible in their fiscal and monetary policies. And as a fun highlight, keeping people in power in irresponsible countries longer than they should be, suppressing dynamic change and economic and social liberty.
It shouldn't be too surprising then that the person in charge (and who elected him Workers wants to know?) of rewarding this irresponsible behaviour of promising to the populace more than the populace is willing to pay in taxes, and then not being able to make the interest payments on the debt unless getting a bailout from the IMF? Why should the person in charge of bailing-out the international monopoly-capital power structure (those staying in $3,000 per night hotelrooms on the taxpayers' dollars and yen and pound etc.) not act in a corrupt manner in his private life (if indeed he did, innocent until proven guilty, but the point here is that it should not come as surprise)? He is above the law is he not, because, well is international law really enforceable? No.
posted by Cameron Weber at 4:06 PM
