World Bank Disgrace

[Spideynw]

WORLD BANK DISGRACE | National Center for Policy Analysis

Corruption is an endemic problem in World Bank projects, swallowing unknown but significant chunks from its $30 billion-plus annual portfolio. Yet nothing can compare to what has now been uncovered about five health projects in India, involving $569 million in loans, says the Wall Street Journal.
According to the World Bank's Department of Institutional Integrity (INT):

• In the $54 million Food and Drug Capacity Building Project, INT found questionable procurement practices, some of which indicate fraud and corruption, in nearly $9 of every $10 in aid funds.
• For the $194 million Second National AIDS Control Project, the INT discovered that some of the test kits supplied performed poorly by producing erroneous or invalid results, potentially resulting in the further spread of disease.
• In the $114 million Malaria Control Project, the review found numerous indicators of poor product quality in the bed nets supplied by the firms.

Also:

• In the $125 million Tuberculosis Control Project, the INT discovered bidders sharing the same address and telephone numbers, unit prices showing a common formula, and indicators of intent to split contract awards among several bidders.
• After visiting 55 hospitals connected to the bank's $82 million Orissa Health Systems Development Project, INT investigators found uninitiated and uncompleted work, severely leaking roofs, crumbling ceilings, molding walls, non-functional water, sewage and/or electrical systems.
• It also found neonatal equipment that lacked adequate electrical grounding, potentially exposing babies and their medical staff to electrical shocks.

The foreign aid lobby sometimes says that corruption is the inevitable price of "doing good" in the developing world, says the Journal. But given the hazardous laboratories and sewage overflowing in hospitals outlined in the report, it is a wonder how anyone can make that case with a clear conscience.
Source: Editorial, "World Bank Disgrace," Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2008.

Government inefficiency at its best.

[bheld]

More like "neoconservatism at its best."

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

More like "neoconservatism at its best."

Which means?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Which means?

The World Bank and IMF have been under the control of neoconservatives for decades now and it has been apparent in crisis after crisis that they are driven by an agenda that falls outside of the original mission of both organizations. It should be no surprise to people that already know this fact that the World Bank is corrupt because it's a logical extension of the power these two entities have given to the private sector.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by bheld

The World Bank and IMF have been under the control of neoconservatives for decades now and it has been apparent in crisis after crisis that they are driven by an agenda that falls outside of the original mission of both organizations. It should be no surprise to people that already know this fact that the World Bank is corrupt because it's a logical extension of the power these two entities have given to the private sector.

Thats just not so. The World Bank and the IMF are independent of red/blue affiliation. They are a globalist organization. Globalists are in control of all tents now.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Thats just not so. The World Bank and the IMF are independent of red/blue affiliation. They are a globalist organization. Globalists are in control of all tents now.

Neoconservative as it relates to economics, not politics. Neoliberal in other parts of the world. Think Milton Friedman.

I didn't mean to paint all conservatives as subscribing to these views but you certainly won't find many on the left advocating them. I'm among those waiting with cautious optimism for the right wing to come around and get away from that philosophy.

[David Octavius]

Doesn't surprise me - but the solution isn't destroying the institution, its cleaning it up, making it more efficient and holding those who are part of the problem accountable. And when watchdogs find them becoming corrupt, the cycle is repeated.

Corruption and inefficiency is part of governing but you don't throw away the baby with the bathwater, you do what the heart of republican government (I am talking government in general not the IMF and WB though the same spirit holds true) - hold them accountable and reform

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Doesn't surprise me - but the solution isn't destroying the institution, its cleaning it up, making it more efficient and holding those who are part of the problem accountable. And when watchdogs find them becoming corrupt, the cycle is repeated.

Corruption and inefficiency is part of governing but you don't throw away the baby with the bathwater, you do what the heart of republican government (I am talking government in general not the IMF and WB though the same spirit holds true) - hold them accountable and reform

If this were possible, it would have been done a long time ago. Since it isn't, the only solution is to get rid of it.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by bheld

Neoconservative as it relates to economics, not politics. Neoliberal in other parts of the world. Think Milton Friedman.

I didn't mean to paint all conservatives as subscribing to these views but you certainly won't find many on the left advocating them. I'm among those waiting with cautious optimism for the right wing to come around and get away from that philosophy.

Actually, I have heard a lot of talk from the "left" that supported the IMF "helping" poor nations to get on their feet and to "save the children".

Now there is the "left" support of MICROCREDIT and MICROLOANS that establish low tier economies in very poor regions. These loans are given almost exclusively to women. They "help the oppressed". Of course this economic experimentation is exploitive in nature too.

I don't believe in left/right liberal/conservative labels anymore.

Few people on either side of the fence have clearly established principles or philosophy. Just a way to whipsaw the public into voting the same bastards into power.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Actually, I have heard a lot of talk from the "left" that supported the IMF "helping" poor nations to get on their feet and to "save the children".

Now there is the "left" support of MICROCREDIT and MICROLOANS that establish low tier economies in very poor regions. These loans are given almost exclusively to women. They "help the oppressed". Of course this economic experimentation is exploitive in nature too.

I don't believe in left/right liberal/conservative labels anymore.

Few people on either side of the fence have clearly established principles or philosophy. Just a way to whipsaw the public into voting the same bastards into power.

I think a lot on the left embrace the ideas of what the World Bank is supposed to be, but who's at the helm right now? Who nominated him? What was his last position, and was he instrumental in any bad decisions at his old position?

I know the answer to those questions, and I think it explains many of the problems currently taking place.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Actually, I have heard a lot of talk from the "left" that supported the IMF "helping" poor nations to get on their feet and to "save the children".

Now there is the "left" support of MICROCREDIT and MICROLOANS that establish low tier economies in very poor regions. These loans are given almost exclusively to women. They "help the oppressed". Of course this economic experimentation is exploitive in nature too.

I don't believe in left/right liberal/conservative labels anymore.

Few people on either side of the fence have clearly established principles or philosophy. Just a way to whipsaw the public into voting the same bastards into power.

Well John Maynard Keynes himself was the moving force behind the creation of the IMF, so obviously many of those of us on the left think it's a good idea. Labels aside, the issue is with the implementation and not the mission of the IMF.

I don't see how microlending plays into this nor do I see how it's exploitative.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by bheld

Well John Maynard Keynes himself was the moving force behind the creation of the IMF, so obviously many of those of us on the left think it's a good idea. Labels aside, the issue is with the implementation and not the mission of the IMF.

I don't see how microlending plays into this nor do I see how it's exploitative.

I am not a fan of globalist entities in general, but if the US gov had no stake or control of the WB and IMF, I would not be concerned with it or its practices.

Discriminatory lending practices leads to controlled economies and social controls.

Microcredit seemed like a good idea to me till I heard how it was being issued. Microcredit is a tool used by the World Bank to extend credit to poor women to start sanctioned businesses. I image that the one of the biggest percieved benefits to extending credit is to establish large numbers of identities. Banks are now in the people tracking business. Read the PATRIOT act for more info on that.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

I am not a fan of globalist entities in general, but if the US gov had no stake or control of the WB and IMF, I would not be concerned with it or its practices.

Discriminatory lending practices leads to controlled economies and social controls.

Microcredit seemed like a good idea to me till I heard how it was being issued. Microcredit is a tool used by the World Bank to extend credit to poor women to start sanctioned businesses. I image that the one of the biggest percieved benefits to extending credit is to establish large numbers of identities. Banks are now in the people tracking business. Read the PATRIOT act for more info on that.

The World Bank and IMF aren't really globalist, you might be confusing them with the WTO. They are mostly geared toward development (World Bank) and financial crisis management (IMF). Lately they've become tools of globalists but most of the damage done has been through inaction. Look at the Asian market crisis of the 90s to see how poorly the IMF performed.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by bheld

I didn't mean to paint all conservatives as subscribing to these views but you certainly won't find many on the left advocating them. I'm among those waiting with cautious optimism for the right wing to come around and get away from that philosophy.

You don't think the left subscribes to the notion of the World Bank and IMF handing out Billions of poorly accounted money for all these "feel good" Foreign Aid projects?

Or should the UN do it like Oil for Food?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by bheld

Well John Maynard Keynes himself was the moving force behind the creation of the IMF, so obviously many of those of us on the left think it's a good idea. Labels aside, the issue is with the implementation and not the mission of the IMF.

I don't see how microlending plays into this nor do I see how it's exploitative.

Is anything ever just a bad and very unworkable idea?

It makes me wonder about people who continue to cheer larger and more powerful public institutions and then get upset when they think their kind of bureaucrat cannot maintain control of them. Perhaps they should have thought of that when granting such powers in the first place.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

If this were possible, it would have been done a long time ago. Since it isn't, the only solution is to get rid of it.

If we go by that reasoning that why have government in the first place? Our government (US government) has been corrupt for years why not just get rid of it?

No you don't get rid of something because its hard to reform or that it takes time (Don't libertarians - at least on this board - preach that the market is self correcting even if it takes years? Why the *convenient* double standard here?). You get rid of an organization if its inheritantly oppressive not inept. Now I am sure you think it is oppressive but that is not the discussion here, the solution are states holding it accountable as we need to hold our government accountable - if we don't, government doesn't work just like these organizations don't work if not held in check.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Is anything ever just a bad and very unworkable idea?

It makes me wonder about people who continue to cheer larger and more powerful public institutions and then get upset when they think their kind of bureaucrat cannot maintain control of them. Perhaps they should have thought of that when granting such powers in the first place.

Thats a problem of both the left AND right in this country, not just the left...nice try

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Is anything ever just a bad and very unworkable idea?

It makes me wonder about people who continue to cheer larger and more powerful public institutions and then get upset when they think their kind of bureaucrat cannot maintain control of them. Perhaps they should have thought of that when granting such powers in the first place.

That's what democracy is, bud. You want to trash the Constitution too because it gets infringed upon?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

If we go by that reasoning that why have government in the first place? Our government (US government) has been corrupt for years why not just get rid of it?

I think we should get rid of almost all of it. Except for the courts and a small defense, we do not need anything else.

As to the market self correcting but the government not self correcting, it is not a double standard. They do not work the same way. Government works on the basis of force whereas the market works on the basis of voluntary cooperation.

If the government wants more money, it just uses force to make the citizens give up their money. If a business wants more money, it has to convince people to give them more money.

Since the government can use force to get what it wants, it does not have to change. Since businesses have to convince people to give them more money, they have to change to succeed.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by bheld

The World Bank and IMF aren't really globalist, you might be confusing them with the WTO. They are mostly geared toward development (World Bank) and financial crisis management (IMF). Lately they've become tools of globalists but most of the damage done has been through inaction. Look at the Asian market crisis of the 90s to see how poorly the IMF performed.

The World Bank exists to integrate countries into the G7/G8 banking cartel. The IMF is the worm on the hook.

"Let me control a nations finances and I care not who makes her laws." ~ Meyer Amstel Rothschild

Once financially integrated into the global centralized bank system, a nations economy belongs to the holders of credit and corporate stock.