I was going to write about the Supreme Court’s recent decision on Chicago’s blatantly unconstitutional handgun ban. But that issue will be around for a while…
I was perusing Huffington Post today, and found this gem of an article on the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-attack-of-the-real-bl_b_643506.html
I for one, find the IMF as nothing more as the financial strong arm of the UN. The IMF and the UN Security Council often cross lines for each of their agenda’s. The IMF is a more ‘humane’ organization to further the wishes of the Security Council.
The article states that the IMF is worried about the US deficit and budget(as we all should be). They recommend that the US cut Social Security benefits. This is outrageous; SS benefits don’t even provide a livable wage (less than $1,200/month on average) to most people.
The IMF is supposed to oversee fiscal policy of governments to ensure that they are sustainable. Where were they when the US bailed out the banks? To many people, this statement by the IMF will likely be surprising; not to some.
Lets look at the IMF, and see what possibly could be the motivation:
The IMF has a history of funding political parties and military dictatorships that have favorable agendas to the US and Europe, almost all the time the IMF financed the dictators though they had no way to pay. Then comes in the UN and Security Council to ‘peace keep’ or ‘fix’ things. Recent examples are Chile’s Pinochet, Liberia’s Doe, Somalia’s Barre, Zaire’s Mobutu. Most of these dictator’s were put into place by CIA sanctioned and supported coups. Many of these dictators then systematically executed dissidents, and other vocal opposition leaders. Charles Taylor, African warlord, leader and blood diamond exporter's upcoming trial is a good example.
The African dictators were eventually overthrown by the masses, and in large part left a vacuum of power that was filled by tribal and secular warfare, largely persisting to this day. Often times, after the dictator is overthrown by the people, (or the same CIA that installed them) the UN sends troops to the region to keep things less hostile. Even the UN’s progress is questionable at best in places like the Congo, Liberia, and Somalia. Chile was the exception, they rebuilt and now are stable. History has shown the IMF policies in most nations have resulted in inflation and a devalued currency, not to mention likely bloodshed. They only constant is a country’s debt to the IMF, and ultimately to the United Nations.
Policy of the IMF is dictated by the board of governors; people appointed to represent each country. Voting powers are weighted by a complex formula based on that country's economic weight in the world economy. The US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, China, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Russia comprise around 50% of the voting power of the IMF, these 11 countries control IMF policies for 188 nations. With the exception of Russia and China the controlling nations are fraught with European banking corruption and control. China is complex, Russia is just more of a large mob family. Most if not all industrialized countries utilize a central bank similar to the shadowy US Federal Reserve. Our Federal Reserve is run by the NY Federal Reserve, who was headed by Timothy Geitner. Geitner also sits on the IMF board representing the Unites States.
So why would the IMF want the US to cut Social Security for it’s citizens. They made no mention of TARP bailouts being a huge cost. No mention of 2 wars that don’t look like will end anytime soon. The IMF didn’t even seem to mention all the back room dealing with the Health Care reform.
The IMF won't talk about Afghanistan or Iraq, Iraq has HUGE oil reserves, and Afghanistan i rumored to have vast reserves of metals and other precious resources. The IMF will likely advice that 'reputable' companies such as Haliburton, Citgo, Shell, BP, etc be in charge of the extraction of these minerals. The IMF likely want to loan both Irag and Afghanistan money in hope of a default by their week governments. Once there is a default, we'll send in the US, UK French, Chinese, and Russian Companies (all whose home countries enjoy a permanent seat on the UN security council) to responsibly help develop resources. The reasoning will be corruption is too great to let Iraq and Afghanistan do this themselves. This may be true, but is BP any better? How about Haliburton, or Royal Dutch Shell? The corruption of these countries benefits Europe and US economics, and ultimately the banking system that write fiscal policy for their country.
My opinion is the IMF, aka UN, wants to reign in the US. The US has enjoyed much power in the world, and is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The US has played cowboy in world politics since WWII. We have installed governments in Panama, Nicaragua, and others, meddled in Somalia, Vietnam, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, etc. Ironically the UK and France have done the same things, but aren’t so blatant about it, yet the both are permanent members of the Security Council as well. Russia and China, also permanent Security Council members, have claimed other countries as their own, yet the US seems to not try to cover up our shady dealings.
Another Possibility?
I am pretty sure these permanent members are only trying to chastise the US for it’s OPEN disregard for humanity and morality, not punished for DOING bad things to innocent people in far off lands. Look at Taiwan, Tibet, Chechnya, Georgia, Algeria, etc… these are all worse off from the other 4 Security Council member’s meddling, but they were finished off a lot quicker than Iraq and Afghanistan.
Maybe the UN is just looking to own the US. The IMF has a history of providing loans to developing countries with outrageous terms. When the country defaults in go the Exxon, BP, Citgo, etc mineral extraction teams. They then use the country’s resources to pay off debt. Is the IMF trying to give the US such a horrible recommendation that instead we take a predatory loan out from the IMF only to REALLY pay the piper down the road?
Does the US really need the UN? We don’t seem to follow their recommendation on stuff like the Kyoto Treaty, Geneva Conventions, Invading Iraq, etc…
I may be well off the mark here. I am sure the right blowhards like Rush and Bachmann will tell you that this is just a way to kill the seniors even quicker. It may be part of the 'socialist' agenda. The left will say it is leftover policy from Regan and the Bushes. This can be spun a number or ways. The only thing I can be sure of is that Wall Street and many politicians will likely gain. My aging parents on their frugal lifestyle will suffer. I don't hate America, I am not ashamed to be American. I am ashamed that many of our citizen are playing into partisan cheer leading while each party takes away from us in the form of banks and confusing legislation.
I may come back later, clean this up and go more in depth. Right now it is hotter than hell, and I need to go to the pool and have a drink, maybe even 6 drinks.
No comments:
Post a Comment