The UK is withholding £50m it had pledged to the World Bank in protest at conditions it attaches to aid.

International Development Secretary Hilary Benn voiced concerns that the Bank is telling poorer nations how to run their affairs.

Oxfam said it welcomed the move by the UK government, adding that the World Bank's policy on aid was "disastrous".

Oxfam and other campaigners such as Christian Aid say the World Bank's current policies often leave people in developing countries worse off than before.

"Imagine what life would be like if you had to run every decision you made by your bank manager and if he or she didn't like it, you would have to change it," Christian Aid policy manager Anna Thomas said.

"That is the reality for many poor countries and they can't just switch accounts."

Christian Aid points to the example of Ghana where the World Bank's demand for a ban on tariffs and subsidies for the poultry market has led to an influx of cheap European imports and seen many thousands of Ghanaians lose their jobs and livelihoods.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5344752.stm

___________


About time somebody took a stand on this issue.

International Development Secretary Hilary Benn voiced concerns that the Bank is telling poorer nations how to run their affairs.

Well, ain't it true that the poor nations of the world really CAN'T run their own fuckin' affairs?! If they could, there probably wouldn't be such horrendous poverty and death and disease.

One of the problems of the world is the silly-assed attitude that we can just throw money at some nation's problems and solve it all. That's always been nothing but bullshit .....all it does is allow the rich nations of the world a good excuse to say something like, "Well, we're helping them!"

Baron Max

Well, ain't it true that the poor nations of the world really CAN'T run their own fuckin' affairs?! If they could, there probably wouldn't be such horrendous poverty and death and disease.

One of the problems of the world is the silly-assed attitude that we can just throw money at some nation's problems and solve it all. That's always been nothing but bullshit .....all it does is allow the rich nations of the world a good excuse to say something like, "Well, we're helping them!"

Baron Max

Is that true?

Giving "aid" and then taking back $13 for every dollar in debt (1998).

And giving aid in the form of corporations that put local industries out of business.

And aid in the form of cash crops, that are detrimental to local farmers,

And aid in the form of food exports that take food away from countries that need it the most.

This kind of aid we can do without.

One way of understanding Third World debt is to imagine falling behind on credit-card repayments. As the warning letters pile up, the money still does not materialise. Personal bankruptcy looms. Although this is a traumatic process, it does cancel the debts and allows for a fresh start of sorts. But what if there were no such thing as bankruptcy? The interest charges snowball. The credit card company knows there is no realistic chance of clearing the total amount owed but demands some form of regular payment all the same.

Such is the lot of the world's poorest. The people of the 41 most impoverished countries spend about $8.6 billion (£5.4 million) on foreign debt payments each year to avoid being totally shut off from the world financial community. In many cases they are paying for the corruption or incompetence of leaders past and present, not to mention the greed of developed nations that issued loans to support the sale of their own exports, such as weapons.

Not to mention conveniently situated dictators who use the "aid" to buy weapons from...guess who? The countries giving them aid. :rolleyes:

And relatively speaking, it would take so little...

# It would cost only $13 billion to meet all the world's sanitation and food requirements, which is hardly as much as what people in the United States and the European Union spend each year on perfume...
# "It would cost six billion dollars a year, on top of what is already spent, to put every child in school by the year 2000? That is an enormous sum. Yet it is less than one per cent of what the world spends every year on weapons"


Consider the following:

* In 1970, the world’s poorest countries (roughly 60 countries classified as low-income by the World Bank), owed $25 billion in debt.
* By 2002, this was $523 billion
* For Africa,
o In 1970, it was just under $11 billion
o By 2002, that was over half, to $295 billion
* Debts owed to the multilateral institutions such as the IMF and World Bank is currently around $153 billion
* For the poorest countries debts to multilateral institutions is around $70 billion.

$550 billion has been paid in both principal and interest over the last three decades, on $540bn of loans, and yet there is still a $523 billion dollar debt burden.


What is wrong with the IMF and World Bank policies?

For countries seeking financial assistance, the IMF and World Bank provide it but apply a neoliberal economic ideology or agenda as the preconditions to receiving the money. For example:

* They prescribe cut backs, “liberalization” of the economy and resource extraction/export-oriented open markets as part of their structural adjustment.
* The role of the state is minimized.
* Privatization is encouraged as well as reduced protection of domestic industries.
* Other adjustment policies also include currency devaluation, increased interest rates, “flexibility” of the labor market, and the elimination of subsidies such as food subsidies.
* To be attractive to foreign investors various regulations and standards are reduced or removed.

For poorer countries these impacts can be devastating. Factors such as the following lead to further misery for the developing nations and keep them dependent on developed nations:

* Poor countries must export more in order to raise enough money to pay off their debts in a timely manner.
* Because there are so many nations being asked or forced into the global market place—before they are economically and socially stable and ready—and told to concentrate on similar cash crops and commodities as others, it is like a huge price war.
* The resources then become even cheaper from the poorer regions (which favors consumers in the West).
* Governments then need to increase exports just to keep their currencies stable (which may not be sustainable, either) and earn foreign exchange with which to help pay off debts.
* Governments therefore must:
o spend less
o reduce consumption
o remove or decrease financial regulations
o and so on.
* Over time then:
o the value of labor decreases
o capital flows become more volatile
o and we get into a spiralling race to the bottom
o social unrest is often one result leading to “IMF riots” and protests around the world.
* These nations are then told to peg their currencies to the dollar. But keeping the exchange rate stable is costly due to measures such as increased interest rates, etc.
* Investors obviously concerned about their assets and interests can then pull out very easily if things get tough
o In worst cases capital flight can lead to economic collapses like we have seen in the Asian/global financial crisis of 1997/98/99, Mexico, Brazil and many other places—of course, the blame by mainstream media and free trade economists is laid on emerging markets and their government’s restrictive or inefficient policies, crony capitalism etc, which is a cruel irony.
* When IMF donors keep the exchange rates in their favor, it often means that the poor nations remain poor, or get even poorer. Even the 1997/98/99 global economic financial crisis around the world can be partly blamed on structural adjustment and overly aggressive and early deregulation for emerging economies.
* Millions of children end up dying each year.

Give a fish to a man and he'll live another day ....teach him to fish and he can support himself without anyone giving him anything.

No, Sam, I'm sorry ....I'm just not supportive of giving aid in the form of money, regardlss of the circumstances. There's just too many ways for it to be corrupted and lost or stolen. Aid should be in the form of tangible goods and/or services to be used by the people, not the governments ....and NOT MONEY!

Baron Max

Give a fish to a man and he'll live another day ....teach him to fish and he can support himself without anyone giving him anything.



You got it.

That is exactly what they should do- invest in education and stabilising domestic industries.

You got it. That is exactly what they should do- invest in education and stabilising domestic industries.

Oh, I agree .....but not with the use of money! Money simply turns humans into the greediest, most selfish animals on Earth.

The world should ask for volunteers, to serve without pay, to help the poorer nations of the world ...teachers, scientists, construction experts, architects, engineers, etc. But no money can change hands ....EVER!!!

Baron Max

All humans are, by their very nature, greedy, lying, selfish bastards.

Money simply turns humans into the greediest, most selfish animals on Earth.


According to you Money has nothing to do with it, it's nature.

According to you Money has nothing to do with it, it's nature.

Money is like a catalyst ....know what that is?

Power is also a catalyst for the nature of humans to rise to the occasion.

Sex is another one.

Baron Max

Money is like a catalyst ....know what that is?

Power is also a catalyst for the nature of humans to rise to the occasion.

Sex is another one.



A feline analyst? :D

"First you get the Money, then the Power, then the Women (Sex)."

Money is like a catalyst ....know what that is?

Power is also a catalyst for the nature of humans to rise to the occasion.

Sex is another one.

Baron Max

Interesting. According to Indian philosophy, there are 3 kinds of desire which can lead to war if not controlled:

Power/Money, Women and Land.