Kenapa Tun Mahathir tak pilih IMF ( krisis kewangan 1997 - )Artikel ni membincangkan tentang Formula IMF yang menguntungkan US treasury.
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-gl ... e-in-from-the-cold/
The Globalizer Who Came In From the Cold
JOE STIGLITZ: TODAY'S WINNER OF THE NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS
by Greg Palast
The World Bank's former Chief Economist's accusations are eye-popping - including how the IMF and US Treasury fixed the Russian elections
"It has condemned people to death," the former apparatchik told me. This was like a scene out of Le Carre. The brilliant old agent comes in from the cold, crosses to our side, and in hours of debriefing, empties his memory of horrors committed in the name of a political ideology he now realizes has gone rotten.
And here before me was a far bigger catch than some used Cold War spy. Joseph Stiglitz was Chief Economist of the World Bank. To a great extent, the new world economic order was his theory come to life.
I "debriefed" Stigltiz over several days, at Cambridge University, in a London hotel and finally in Washington in April 2001 during the big confab of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But instead of chairing the meetings of ministers and central bankers, Stiglitz was kept exiled safely behind the blue police cordons, the same as the nuns carrying a large wooden cross, the Bolivian union leaders, the parents of AIDS victims and the other 'anti-globalization' protesters. The ultimate insider was now on the outside.
In 1999 the World Bank fired Stiglitz. He was not allowed quiet retirement; US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, I'm told, demanded a public excommunication for Stiglitz' having expressed his first mild dissent from globalization World Bank style.
Here in Washington we completed the last of several hours of exclusive interviews for The Observer and BBC TV's Newsnight about the real, often hidden, workings of the IMF, World Bank, and the bank's 51% owner, the US Treasury.
And here, from sources unnamable (not Stiglitz), we obtained a cache of documents marked, "confidential," "restricted," and "not otherwise (to be) disclosed without World Bank authorization."
Stiglitz helped translate one from bureaucratise, a "Country Assistance Strategy." There's an Assistance Strategy for every poorer nation, designed, says the World Bank, after careful in-country investigation. But according to insider Stiglitz, the Bank's staff 'investigation' consists of close inspection of a nation's 5-star hotels. It concludes with the Bank staff meeting some begging, busted finance minister who is handed a 'restructuring agreement' pre-drafted for his 'voluntary' signature (I have a selection of these).
Each nation's economy is individually analyzed, then, says Stiglitz, the Bank hands every minister the same exact four-step program.
Step One is Privatization - which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, 'Briberization.' Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders - using the World Bank's demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.
And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest 'briberization' of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. "The US Treasury view was this was great as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected. We don't care if it's a corrupt election. We want the money to go to Yeltzin" via kick-backs for his campaign.
Stiglitz is no conspiracy nutter ranting about Black Helicopters. The man was inside the game, a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet as Chairman of the President's council of economic advisors.
Most ill-making for Stiglitz is that the US-backed oligarchs stripped Russia's industrial assets, with the effect that the corruption scheme cut national output nearly in half causing depression and starvation.
After briberization, Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is 'Capital Market Liberalization.' In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "Hot Money" cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation's reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation's own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.
"The result was predictable," said Stiglitz of the Hot Money tidal waves in Asia and Latin America. Higher interest rates demolished property values, savaged industrial production and drained national treasuries.
At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, "The IMF riot."
The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You'd almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan.
And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that, while in the States, BBC and The Observer obtained several documents from inside the World Bank, stamped over with those pesky warnings, "confidential," "restricted," "not to be disclosed." Let's get back to one: the "Interim Country Assistance Strategy" for Ecuador, in it the Bank several times states - with cold accuracy - that they expected their plans to spark, "social unrest," to use their bureaucratic term for a nation in flames.
That's not surprising. The secret report notes that the plan to make the US dollar Ecuador's currency has pushed 51% of the population below the poverty line. The World Bank "Assistance" plan simply calls for facing down civil strife and suffering with, "political resolve" - and still higher prices.
The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and teargas) cause new panicked flights of capital and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has it's bright side - for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets, such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices.
Stiglitz notes that the IMF and World Bank are not heartless adherents to market economics. At the same time the IMF stopped Indonesia 'subsidizing' food purchases, "when the banks need a bail-out, intervention (in the market) is welcome." The IMF scrounged up tens of billions of dollars to save Indonesia's financiers and, by extension, the US and European banks from which they had borrowed.
A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers in this system but one clear winner: the Western banks and US Treasury, making the big bucks off this crazy new international capital churn. Stiglitz told me about his unhappy meeting, early in his World Bank tenure, with Ethopia's new president in the nation's first democratic election. The World Bank and IMF had ordered Ethiopia to divert aid money to its reserve account at the US Treasury, which pays a pitiful 4% return, while the nation borrowed US dollars at 12% to feed its population. The new president begged Stiglitz to let him use the aid money to rebuild the nation. But no, the loot went straight off to the US Treasury's vault in Washington.
[ Last edited byBangingud at 4-4-2008 01:15 AM ]
Now we arrive at Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their "poverty reduction strategy": Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank, Stiglitz the insider likens free trade WTO-style to the Opium Wars. "That too was about opening markets," he said. As in the 19th century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa, while barricading our own markets against Third World agriculture.
In the Opium Wars, the West used military blockades to force open markets for their unbalanced trade. Today, the World Bank can order a financial blockade just as effective - and sometimes just as deadly.
Stiglitz is particularly emotional over the WTO's intellectual property rights treaty (it goes by the acronym TRIPS, more on that in the next chapters). It is here, says the economist, that the new global order has "condemned people to death" by imposing impossible tariffs and tributes to pay to pharmaceutical companies for branded medicines. "They don't care," said the professor of the corporations and bank loans he worked with, "if people live or die."
By the way, don't be confused by the mix in this discussion of the IMF, World Bank and WTO. They are interchangeable masks of a single governance system. They have locked themselves together by what are unpleasantly called, "triggers." Taking a World Bank loan for a school 'triggers' a requirement to accept every 'conditionality' - they average 111 per nation - laid down by both the World Bank and IMF. In fact, said Stiglitz the IMF requires nations to accept trade policies more punitive than the official WTO rules.
Stiglitz greatest concern is that World Bank plans, devised in secrecy and driven by an absolutist ideology, are never open for discourse or dissent. Despite the West's push for elections throughout the developing world, the so-called Poverty Reduction Programs "undermine democracy."
And they don't work. Black Africa's productivity under the guiding hand of IMF structural "assistance" has gone to hell in a handbag. Did any nation avoid this fate? Yes, said Stiglitz, identifying Botswana. Their trick? "They told the IMF to go packing."
So then I turned on Stiglitz. OK, Mr Smart-Guy Professor, how would you help developing nations? Stiglitz proposed radical land reform, an attack at the heart of "landlordism," on the usurious rents charged by the propertied oligarchies worldwide, typically 50% of a tenant's crops. So I had to ask the professor: as you were top economist at the World Bank, why didn't the Bank follow your advice?
"If you challenge , that would be a change in the power of the elites. That's not high on their agenda." Apparently not.
Ultimately, what drove him to put his job on the line was the failure of the banks and US Treasury to change course when confronted with the crises - failures and suffering perpetrated by their four-step monetarist mambo. Every time their free market solutions failed, the IMF simply demanded more free market policies.
"It's a little like the Middle Ages," the insider told me, "When the patient died they would say, "well, he stopped the bloodletting too soon, he still had a little blood in him."
I took away from my talks with the professor that the solution to world poverty and crisis is simple: remove the bloodsuckers.
sapa Bloodsucker ?
[ Last edited byBangingud at 4-4-2008 02:33 AM ] bahasa omputeh...... ko translate sikit untuk haku. :shakehead3: :shakehead3: :shakehead3: bukan malaysia pernah ambik IMF masa ekonomi merosot pertengahan 80an??? :o dah la panjang...english lak tu...x der sinopsis ker? :o tolong laa translatekan panjang sangat tu...rasa macam malas plak nak baca....buat ringkasan ker aper...:lol: :funk: :funk:
susah nak translate.... :lol:
kena study lagi la kot. :D
sapa boleh tolong saya buat sinopsis ni.
ni yang malas nak buat ringkasan ni, :L da edit sikit mana yang penting... :D Adakah menteri kewangan Malaysia pada masa tu terlibat?
[ Last edited byBangingud at 4-4-2008 01:31 AM ] jawapannya senang saja.. kalau malaysia ni pinjam bank dunia, habislah negara kita dijajah balik oleh org barat.. -deleted- sorry
[ Last edited byBangingud at 4-4-2008 01:44 AM ] ko jgn.. nanti ada org kata mat salleh tu bodoh, tak pandai menilai IMF.. mat salleh tu fitnah.. takkan IMF nak khianat kita...;P
ntah apa mat salleh tu dapat kalu dia buat citer.. sape nak bayo dia?
Reply #12 pessona's postoooooooooooo
takpa, ni da berlalu.. da jadi sejarah, boleh lupakan kot :lol:
Reply #7 Bangingud's postAku lagi malas nak bukak new thread;P ;P
Reply #14 Ayun_Maiden's post:lol: :lol:
ko lagi la malas baca semua tu kan :lol:
oo patut la Peminat PL rupanya zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
tolong la baca sikit.
-peace- kenapa anwar tak setuju cara tun dr mahathir nya plan ngan apa yang dia buat masa tahun 97 ke 98 tuh? nape dia tak setuju gila2 pasal tuh:o :o
Reply #16 gals2's postTun Mahathir tak setuju cara Menteri Kewangan yang ikut formula IMF . Tun Veto Keputusan Menteri Kewangan.
tu yang jadi huru hara Malaysia sekejap. Perlu ker IMF bagai nie? Bukan ker waktu hujung 90s tu Sarawak yg banyak membantu pertumbuhan ekonomi Malaysia? Kalau tak, pertumbuhan ekonomi Malaysia waktu tu negatif taww.... ;P ;P Originally posted by Bangingud at 4-4-2008 02:53 AM http://forum4.cari.com.my/images/common/back.gif
Tun Mahathir tak setuju cara Menteri Kewangan yang ikut formula IMF . Tun Veto Keputusan Menteri Kewangan.
tu yang jadi huru hara Malaysia sekejap.
and menteri kewangan time tu adalah DSAI....dia lah yang cadangkan kat TDM suruh pinjam kat IMF tu....
Reply #19 tok_wann's postya.
kat artikel atas tu bloodsucker adalah IMF=WORLD Bank=US treasury
Anwar ngan World Bank ? ada hubungan ker?? Thai dan korea pinjam IMF... kira mereka dah jadi milik omputeh la tu;P
buat perbandingan...bagi pakcik yg allergic matematik nirasannyacara yg terbaik ialah buat perbandingan. Maksudnya; pada masa itu kebanykan negara mengalami krisis ekonomi - bkn kita je. Ada yg mengambil keputusan utk pinjam IMF dan ada yg tidak.
So, skrg dah puluhan tahun berselang, kita compare je antara negara2 tersebut kedudukan ekonomi nya sekarang. Klu semua negara yg tak ambil IMF aman makmur (mcm kita :) ) dan semua negara yg ambek IMF dah tergadai pada US, maka betul lah tindakan kita. Tp klu resultnya ada pelbagai, maka kajian lain patut dibuat sb ada pembolehubah lain yg memainkan peranan dan bkn sahaja pinjam @ tak dr IMF itu menjadi faktor utama.:re:
[ Last edited bybudaktua at 4-4-2008 07:57 AM ] IMF mengallakan transparency, kalau kita under IMF, mesti lebih baik hari ini Minta tlg forumer tengok kat bghn belakang Passport kita, sbb apa yg aku faham negeri kita masih terikat di bawah takluk British.Dan satu lagi yg aku faham BCG kat lengan tu adalah salah satu cara yg utk buktikan bhw kita pernah dijajah British aku pernah pergi ceramah Stiglizt nie, dia memang memperjuangkan nasib Third World Countries
kalau korang dengar ceramah pakar2 ekonomi dunia, memang byk yang mengecam tindakan IMF dan World Bank
Kalau kita mintak duit from IMF/ World Bank - kita tak dpt duit tu free macam itu ajer tapi:
mereka akan ada hak untuk menentukan polisi negara, kita kena ada agreement untuk biar mereka campur tangan (ini yang utama dan ada lagi syarat2 lain)
sebab itu dulu Mahathir tak nak IMF masuk campur urusan negara, nanti kita terikat dan boleh merudum. Dan byk study telah membuktikan IMF punya policies tidak langsung membantu membangunkan negara tetapi sebaliknya.
Contohnye lah kan, dulu Ghana ada sistem public hospital dan free education. Tapi thn 1984 (kalau tak silap), President dia makan rasuah, negara hancur dan akhirnya negara tu bankrupt. Diaorg ambik bantuan dari IMF. (1) First - IMF privatise kan hospital dan sekolah. So org2 nie dah lah miskin, kena byr pulak untuk benda2 basics such as health care dgn education, jadi ramai yang tak boleh ada access to benda2 nie sebab duit takde.(2) Diaorg bergantung pada cocoa (perusahaan utama), dulu ada Cocoa Board kepunyaan kerajaan, tapi IMF suruh privatise dan harga ikut pasaran market, supaya harga tak ditentukan kerajaan dan tiada subsidi. Sekali harga cocoa jatuh merudum, habis terus perusahaan cocoa diaorg dan ekonomi lagi teruk.Kalau ada Kerajaan bantu bagi subsidi, mungkin diaorang boleh hidup lagi. (3) Untuk bagi kerajaan lagi efficient, diaorg buang ramai pekerja kerajaan, sebab nak cut budget. Dan yang tak dibuang di naik kan gaji. So income gap makin bertambah. Kerja pun susah sebab ekonomi tak bagus, yang kena buang menganggur. Unemployment rate naik mendadak, byk rusuhan sebab orang tak ada duit. Sebab diaorg semua kalau tak kerja kerajaan tak de sumber pendapatan, macam mana nak hidup.Ekonomi diaorg teruk. Tapi IMF tak fikir mcm mana org2 tu nak hidup.
Sebenarnya byk lagi, tapi aku dah lupa :P