Lawrence McGuire writes: >If Argentina was a gold mine for international investors, why should the 'free market globalization model' be questioned? Who created and implemented the 'free market globalization model'? It worked for the people who devised it, didn't it? Isn't the IMF controlled by the US Government, which is controlled mainly by rich individuals and big corporations? The IMF employees managed the Argentine economy for the benefit of their bosses in the U.S., and apparently did a damn good job. So why should the model be questioned?<
well, if there's enough social disorder in Argentina, even the IMF -- which, as McGuire points out, hasn't really made mistakes by its own standards -- will realize that its own standards are too narrow even from the perspective of capital or financial capital. That is, the IMF has done a very good job as the enforcer for financial capital (though of course it's been horrible for the people involved) but movement toward revolution may convince the IMF that being an enforcer isn't enough. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:16 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:21227] Argentina: Confusing Tales > > > Argentina: Confusing Tales > > Counterpunch, January 7, 2002 > >From Progressive Economists > By Lawrence McGuire > > I've been trying for years to figure out the world economic > system, but it > ain't easy. No matter how much I read I always seem to end up > even more > confused than when I started. > > For example, lately I've been trying to understand what is > happening in > Argentina. I know there is a connection between the crowd > surrounding the > finance minister's house banging pots (he resigned that > night), and the > International Monetary Fund (IMF), and people raiding grocery stores > because they are hungry, and motorbike couriers being shot > and killed by > soldiers in Plaza de Mayo, but I don't know how it all fits > together. So > for help I turn to some progressive economists and political > commentators. > They're professionals and should be able to explain it to me, right? > > First I read Marc Cooper (contributing editor to The Nation > and a columnist > for LA Weekly). In his recent column in the LA Times > (12/30/01), Cooper > tells me that for the past decade Argentina has been a 'gold mine' for > international investors. Ok, I guess that means that big > corporations and > rich individuals invested their money in Argentina and made > golden profits. > That's clear. > > But then Cooper says "That experience [the collapse of the Argentine > economy] should be enough to throw into question the free-market > globalization model....". > > Swoosh! That one flies right by me and I'm confused. > > If Argentina was a gold mine for international investors, why > should the > 'free market globalization model' be questioned? Who created and > implemented the 'free market globalization model'? It worked > for the people > who devised it, didn't it? Isn't the IMF controlled by the US > Government, > which is controlled mainly by rich individuals and big > corporations? The > IMF employees managed the Argentine economy for the benefit > of their bosses > in the U.S., and apparently did a damn good job. So why > should the model be > questioned? > > I wrinkle my forehead and gird my mental loins. > 'Concentrate,' I say to > myself. 'Focus and you will understand.' > > Cooper continues: "The United States and other economically powerful > nations, and the international financial organizations they > finance, should > allow for alternative models of development." > > Now I'm even more confused. Why should they allow alternative > models if > they are making such huge profits with their current model? > > Looking for clarity I turn to Mark Weisbrot, (co-director of > the Center for > Economic and Policy Research) writing in the International > Herald Tribune > (12/26/01), and The Nation (12/10/01). > > Weisbrot says: "The IMF's role here was crucial. It arranged > large loans, > including $40 billion a year ago, to support the peso. This > was the IMF's > second fatal error." > > 'Ok,' I say to myself, 'Go slowly. Why was this an error? > Where did the $40 > billion go?' > > I continue reading. Weisbrot says: "The sacrifice of > Argentina's economy > for the sake of Washington's imperial interests and the interests of > 'emerging market' bondholders fits a pattern at the IMF,...." > > Zip zip zip! I've missed something again. First Weisbrot says > the IMF made > an 'error', then he says that this 'error' was made for the sake of > 'imperial interests'. So what is the error? Isn't it the > precise job of the > IMF to implement 'Washington's imperial interests'? Again, > who appoints > them and pays their salary? The $40 billion apparently went > to pay foreign > bondholders, right? And the $40 billion came originally from > US taxpayers, > right? (Isn't that where IMF money comes from?) So > apparently, last year > the IMF transferred $40 billion from US taxpayers to private > US investors, > via Argentina....it seems that IMF is doing exactly what they > are paid to > do. Why does Weisbrot call this an error? Has he not read > what he has just > written? > > full: http://www.counterpunch.org/mcguireargentina.html >
