IMF & WORLD BANK: Puppets of Neoliberism

Written nearly 10 years ago, this article has many incredibly valuable lessons for America today.

Clipped from www.mit.edu

The IMF and the WORLD BANK: Puppets of the Neoliberal Onslaught Today, September 26, thousands of activists are protesting in Prague, in the Czech Republic, against the policies and institutional structures of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. These protests are the latest action in a growing movement that is highly critical of the neoliberal economic policies being imposed on people all over the world, including those in western countries. As Robert McChesney concisely describes it, neoliberalism “refers to the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their personal profit.” The major beneficiaries of neoliberalism are large trans-national corporations and wealthy investors. The implementation of neoliberal policies came into full force during the eighties under Thatcher and Reagan. Today, the principles of neoliberalism are widely held with near-religious fervor by most major political parties in the US and Britain and are gaining acceptance by those holding power elsewhere. Although the proponents of neoliberalism extol the virtues of free markets, free trade, private enterprise and consumer choice, the effects of neoliberal policies is quite the opposite. In fact, these policies typically result in very protectionist markets dominated by a few trans-national corporations. Many sectors of the economy - ranging from food processing and distribution to the corporate media to aviation - are oligopolies and can be characterized as highly centralized command economies that are only a shade more competitive than the economy of the former Soviet Union. A major theme of neoliberal policies is deregulation and the removal of government interference in the economy. Consistently, such policies are applied in a one sided way, and always in a manner that benefits large trans-national corporations, the most influential entities in policy making. Hence, within neoliberalism as it is actually applied, capital is allowed to roam the world freely with very few restrictions, yet workers are to remain trapped within the borders of their countries. This serves trans-national corporations well, though for some, not well enough. According to Jack Welsh, CEO of GE, he and GE’s shareholders would be best served if factories were on barges so that when workers demand higher wages and better working conditions, the barges could easily be moved to a country with more compliant workers. Another component of neoliberalism is the dismantling of the welfare state. Again, in practice, this policy is applied to the majority of the population, who have to accept cut backs in unemployment benefits and health care, while large corporations continue to receive massive subsidies and tax breaks. The effects of neoliberal policies on people everywhere has been devastating. During the last two to three decades, wealth disparity has increased many fold within countries as well as between countries. In the US, inflation adjusted median wages are lower today than they were in 1973 (when median wages reached their peak) while the wealth of the top 1% of society has soared. One out of every five children in the US lives in a state of poverty characterized by continual hunger, insecurity and lack of adequate health care. This, after almost ten years of a record breaking economic boom. For the poorest people in the world, the situation has become even more desperate. John Gershman and Alec Irwin state in “Dying for growth”: 100 countries have undergone grave economic decline over the past three decades. Per capita income in these 100 countries is now lower than it was 10, 15, 20 or in some cases even 30 years ago. In Africa, the average household consumes 20 percent less today than it did 25 years ago. Worldwide, more than 1 billion people saw their real incomes fall during the period 1980-1993. Meanwhile, according to the United Nations Development Program’s 1998 Human Development Report, the 15 richest people in the world enjoy combined assets that exceed the total annual gross domestic product of sub-Saharan Africa. At the end of the 1990’s, the wealth of the three richest individuals on earth surpassed the combined annual GDP of the 48 least developed countries. The Thistle won’t waste ink on how the wealthy have fared since the mainstream corporate press does a very commendable job in this respect. Neoliberalism has been a disaster for the environment as well. Despite the growing awareness in the late eighties that the rate of fossil fuel consumption at that time would cause global warming and many other forms of unpredictable and dangerous environmental changes, energy consumption has continued to increase at an alarming rate. This has been facilitated by neoliberal deregulation of environmental protections championed by corporate puppets such as Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay. In their continued quest for windfall profits, for example, corporations such as Ford and GM aggressively marketed (and continue to do so) highly polluting sports utility vehicles (SUVs) while ignoring cleaner and more efficient technologies. This was made possible by loop holes in environmental laws allowing SUVs to be sold that do not meet the emission standards imposed on passenger cars. Consumer Reports Magazine (Nov. pg. 54) noted in 1997, that “the growing popularity of SUVs, has helped make the 1997 automotive model year the least fuel-efficient in the last 16 years”. Due to the subservience of government to large corporations, these loop holes are still in place. Today, the qualitative predictions of a decade ago are starting to manifesting themselves. The average temperature of the world has risen over the last decade and for the first time, water has been observed on the polar caps. One industry that has benefited significantly from neoliberal policies is the biotech industry, though not without potentially catastrophic costs for the majority of the population. While large biotech corporations such as Monsanto and Dupont are aiming for massive profits, the environment and our food supply is irreversibly being altered in the process, creating a situation where large portions of the population and all future generations are subjected to potentially severe and unpredictable health risks. As a way to promote the nascent biotech industry, the Bush administration in the early nineties adopted a policy which held that regulations should not be created in such a way as to be a burden on the industry. The Clinton administration has continued this policy, and today approximately 60% of our food is genetically modified. This transformation of our food supply has occurred with scant public knowledge or oversight. And although genes from viruses, bacteria or arctic fish with anti-freeze properties are inserted into crops, the federal regulatory agencies, with heavy industry influence, maintain that genetically modified foods are no different from crops obtained with traditional breeding techniques and therefore do not need to be approved (unless the transported genes are known to induce a human allergen). Studies investigating the long term health and environmental effects of genetically modified crops are not required by any federal agency and are rarely performed. In this atmosphere of deregulation and concentrated corporate control, it is only a matter of time before a serious biological catastrophe occurs. What does the IMF and World Bank have to do with this? The IMF and World Bank were both created at the end of world war II in a political climate the is very different from that of today. Nevertheless, their roles and modalities have been suitably updated to serve the interests of those that benefit from neoliberalism. The institutional structures of the IMF and World Bank were framed at an international conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. Initially, the primary focus of the IMF was to regulate currency exchange rates to facilitate orderly international trade and to be a lender of last resort when a member country experiences balance of payments difficulties and is unable to borrow money from other sources. The original purpose of the World Bank was to lend money to Western European governments to help them rebuild their countries after the war. In later years, the World Bank shifted its attention towards development loans to third world countries. Immediately after world war II, most western countries, including the US, had ‘New Deal’ style social contracts with sufficient welfare provisions to ensure ‘stability’ between labor and capital. It was understood that restrictions on international capital flow were necessary to protect these social contracts. The postwar ‘Bretton Woods’ economic system which lasted until the early seventies, was based on the right and obligation of governments to regulate capital flow and was characterized by rapid economic growth. In the early seventies, the Nixon administration unilaterally abandoned the Bretton Woods system by dropping the gold standard and lifting restrictions on capital flows. The ensuing period has been marked by dramatically increased financial speculation and low growth rates. Although seemingly neutral institutions, in practice, the IMF and World Bank end up serving powerful interests of western countries. At both institutions, the voting power of a given country is not measured by, for example, population, but by how much capital that country contributes to the institutions and by other political factors reflecting the power the country wields in the world. The G7 plays a dominant role in determining policy, with the US, France, Germany, Japan and Great Britain each having their own director on the institution’s executive board while 19 other directors are elected by the rest of the approximately 150 member countries. The president of the World Bank is traditionally an American citizen and is chosen with US congressional involvement. The managing director of the IMF is traditionally a European. On the IMF board of governors, comprised of treasury secretaries, the G7 have a combined voting power of 46%. The power of the IMF becomes clear when a country gets into financial trouble and needs funds to make payments on private loans. Before the IMF grants a loan, it imposes conditions on that country, requiring it to make structural changes in its economy. These conditions are called ‘Structural Adjustment Programs’ (SAPs) and are designed to increase money flow into the country by promoting exports so that the country can pay off its debts. Not surprisingly, in view of the dominance of the G7 in IMF policy making, the SAPs are highly neoliberal. The effective power of the IMF is often larger than that associated with the size of its loans because private lenders often deem a country credit-worthy based on actions of the IMF. The World Bank plays a qualitatively different role than the IMF, but works tightly within the stringent SAP framework imposed by the IMF. It focuses on development loans for specific projects, such as the building of dams, roads, harbors etc that are considered necessary for ‘economic growth’ in a developing country. Since it is a multilateral institution, the World Bank is less likely than unilateral lending institutions such as the Export Import Bank of the US to offer loans for the purpose of promoting and subsidizing particular corporations. Nevertheless, the conceptions of growth and economic well being within the World Bank are very much molded by western corporate values and rarely take account of local cultural concerns. This is clearly exhibited by the modalities of its projects, such as the ‘Green Revolution’ in agriculture, heavily promoted in the third world by the World Bank in the sixties and seventies. The ‘Green Revolution’ refers to the massive industrialization of agriculture, involving the replacement of a multitude of indigenous crops with a few high-yielding varieties that require expensive investments of chemicals, fertilizers and machinery. In the third world, the ‘Green Revolution’ was often imposed on indigenous populations with reasonably sustainable and self sufficient traditions of rural agriculture. The mechanization of food production in third world countries, which have a large surplus labor pool, has led to the marginalization of many people, disconnecting them from the economy and exacerbating wealth disparity in these countries. Furthermore, excessive chemical agriculture has led to soil desertification and erosion, increasing the occurrence of famines. While the ‘Green Revolution’ was a catastrophe for the poor in third world countries, western chemical corporations such as Monsanto, Dow and Dupont fared very well, cashing in high profits and increasing their control over food production in third world countries. Today, the World Bank is at it again. This time it is promoting the use of genetically modified seeds in the third world and works with governments to solidify patent laws which would grant biotech corporations like Monsanto unprecedented control over food production. The pattern is clear, whether deliberate or nor, the World Bank serves to set the stage for large trans-national corporations to enter third world countries, extract large profits and then leave with carnage in their wake. While the World Bank publicly emphasizes that it aims to alleviate poverty in the world, imperialistic attitudes occasionally emerge from its leading figures. In 1991, then chief economist Lawrence Summers (now US Secretary of the Treasury) wrote in an internal memo that was leaked: Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [less developed countries]? ... The economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable, and we should face up to that ... Under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted; their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City .... The concern over an agent that causes a one-in-a-million chance in the odds of prostate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than in a country where under-five mortality is 200 per thousand. And thistle thought that the World Bank tried to extend lives in developing countries, not take advantage of low life expectancy. How do countries get into financial troubles, the Debt Crisis. The most devastating program imposed by the IMF and the World Bank on third world countries are the Structural Adjustment Programs. The widespread use of SAPs started in the early eighties after a major debt crisis. The debt crisis arose from a combination of (i) reckless lending by western commercial banks to third world countries, (ii) mismanagement within third world countries and (iii) changes in the international economy. During the seventies, rising oil prices generated enormous profits for petrochemical corporations. These profits ended up in large commercial banks which then sought to reinvest the capital. Much of this capital was invested in the form of high risk loans to third world countries, many of which were run by corrupt dictators. Instead of investing the capital in productive projects that would benefit the general population, dictators often diverted the funds to personal Swiss bank accounts or used the them to purchase military equipment for domestic repression. This state of affairs persisted for a while, since commodity prices remained stable and interest rates were relatively low enabling third world countries to adequately service their debts. In 1979, the situation changed, however, when Paul Volker, the new Federal Reserve Chairman, raised interest rates. This dramatically increased the cost of debtor countries’ loans. At the same time, the US was heading into a recession and world commodity prices dropped, tightening cash flows necessary for debt payment. The possibility that many third world countries would default on their debt payments threatened a major financial crisis that would result in large commercial bank failures. To prevent this, powerful countries from the G7 stepped in and actively used the IMF and World Bank to bail out third world countries. Yet the bail-out packages were contingent upon the third world countries introducing major neoliberal policies (i.e. SAPs) to promote exports. Examples of SAP prescriptions include: - an increase in ‘labor flexibility’ which means caps on minimum wages, and policies to weaken trade unions and worker’s bargaining power. - tax increases combined with cuts in social spending such as education and health care, to free up funds for debt repayment. - privatization of public sector enterprises, such as utility companies and public transport - financial liberalization designed to remove restrictions on the flow of international capital in and out of the country coupled with the removal of restrictions on what foreign corporations and banks can buy. Despite almost two decades of Structural Adjustment Programs, many third world countries have not been able to pull themselves out of massive debt. The SAPs have, however, served corporations superbly, offering them new opportunities to exploit workers and natural resources. As Prof. Chomsky often says, the debt crisis is an ideological construct. In a true capitalist society, the third world debt would be wiped out. The Banks who made the risky loans would have to accept the losses, and the dictators and their entourage would have to repay the money they embezzled. The power structure in society however, prevents this from happening. In the west tax payers end up assuming the risk while the large banks run off with the high profits often derived from high risk loans. In the third world, the people end up paying the costs while their elites retire in the French Riviera. It is important to realize that the IMF and World Bank are tools for powerful entities in society such as trans-national corporations and wealthy investors. The Thistle believes that massive world poverty and environmental destruction is the result of the appalling concentration of power in the hands of a small minority whose sights are blinded by dollar signs and whose passions are the aggrandizement of ever more power. The Thistle holds that an equitable and democratic world centered around cooperation and solidarity would be more able to deal with environmental and human crises. Read more at www.mit.edu

 

#peakoil demands population decrease

Starving the beast takes on a whole new meaning

Clipped from peakcomplexity.blogspot.com

Devastating Demand Destruction

It stands to reason, then, that when resources become increasingly scarce due to ecosystem degradation, peak oil and climate change, violent conflict at the individual, community and nation-state level will become increasingly more likely to occur, which will also feed back into resource scarcity (i.e. oil supply disruptions in the Middle East). People will likely be exposed to this violence over the next few years, regardless of whether they live in Manhattan, London, Tehran, Beijing, Tokyo or many of the cities in between. Read more at peakcomplexity.blogspot.com

 

Fed Reserve - Pyramid Scheme @maddow

Seriously, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geitner and Ben Benanke should all go to jail. But then again, so would EVERYBODY in every administration since the dawn of USA time.

This is a huge pyramid scheme.

Clipped from www.rollingstone.com

The Real Housewives of Wall Street Why is the Federal Reserve forking over $220 million in bailout money to the wives of two Morgan Stanley bigwigs?

America has two national budgets, one official, one unofficial. The official budget is public record and hotly debated: Money comes in as taxes and goes out as jet fighters, DEA agents, wheat subsidies and Medicare, plus pensions and bennies for that great untamed socialist menace called a unionized public-sector workforce that Republicans are always complaining about. According to popular legend, we're broke and in so much debt that 40 years from now our granddaughters will still be hooking on weekends to pay the medical bills of this year's retirees from the IRS, the SEC and the Department of Energy. Read more at www.rollingstone.com

 

What Goes Up... #peakoil @barackobama

Ready for the ride down? "Demand destruction" includes population decrease by any means necessary in some people's minds - the US Neocons for example.

Clipped from dieoff.org

Abstract:  Petroleum geologists have known for 50 years that global oil production would "peak" and begin its inevitable decline within a decade of the year 2000.  Moreover, no renewable energy systems have the potential to generate more than a tiny fraction of the power now being generated by fossil fuels. In short, the end of oil signals the end of civilization, as we know it.

See more at dieoff.org

 

#PeakOil Discussion @barackobama #2012

Lovins makes an economic case for moving aggressively to solve such challenges as global warming, peak oil and the vulnerability of our energy infrastructure. She argues that climate protection, energy efficiency, renewable energy and other sustainable approaches will give us a stronger economy and a higher quality of life

Clipped from pyr.commonwealthclub.org:81

Lovins makes an economic case for moving aggressively to solve such challenges as global warming, peak oil and the vulnerability of our energy infrastructure. She argues that climate protection, energy efficiency, renewable energy and other sustainable approaches will give us a stronger economy and a higher quality of life

L Hunter Lovins: Climate Capitalism (SV)

President and Founder, Natural Capitalism Solutions; Author, Climate Capitalism: Capitalism in the Age of Climate Change Read more at pyr.commonwealthclub.org:81

 

Capitalism Destroying Our Minds Ritalin

If no one makes money off of you they certainly aren't going to recommend the RIGHT thing.

ADD ADHD = Not enough excercise. Make the kids walk to school.

Clipped from www.bicycling.com

If exercise is so effective, why isn't it more widely used as a treatment?

"First, the answer is too simple," says Wendt, the author of the 1999 SUNY study. Exercise improves health: It's not exactly ground-breaking news. There's little incentive for scientists to prove such common wisdom, even if it might be critically helpful to parents and kids with ADHD. "Second, pharmaceutical companies fund a lot of medical research," Wendt says, "and you see no funding for research in this area." Read more at www.bicycling.com

 

Global Monetary Pyramid Scheme Crumbling

Spain, Italy, UK, Greece, Ireland, USA...

Clipped from news.yahoo.com

Spain public debt at 11-year high: central bank

AFP/File – Spain's public sector debt hit an 11-year high in the fourth quarter of 60.1 percent of gross domestic … – Fri Mar 18, 7:21 am ET MADRID (AFP) – Spain's public sector debt hit an 11-year high in the fourth quarter of 60.1 percent of gross domestic product, central bank figures showed Friday. The public debt rose to 638.77 billion euros during the period, up from 611.89 billion euros or 57.9 percent of GDP in the third quarter. The figure was slightly better than the government's forecast of 62.8 percent of GDP but it was still the highest level since 1999, when it reached 62.3 percent. The public debt includes debt from the central government, the social security system and regional and local administrations, and is a key measure of the financial health of a country. As an European Union member, Spain is required to keep its public debt below 60 percent of GDP. Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook Read more at news.yahoo.com

 

Global Monetary Pyramid Scheme Crumbling

Clipped from www.cnbc.com

UK Public Debt Is 240 percent of GDP: Think Tank

The UK’s true national debt is now £3,617 billion ($5,930 billion) or £138,359 ($226,807) per household, according to the latest figures from the Centre for Policy Studies, a center-right think tank. Read more at www.cnbc.com

 

IMF on #peakoil - @chrislhayes @maddow

Are you familiar with "Collapse" and peak oil? Get ready

Clipped from news.yahoo.com

IMF warns oil growing scarce, more costly

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The International Monetary Fund warned Thursday that nations should brace for dwindling oil supplies that could drive prices skyward as demand increases, especially in emerging economies .

"After stagnating in recent years, oil supply will not return to the growth trends of the 1980s and 1990s," he said.

Even though China is now the world's biggest energy consumer, its oil consumption is only half as large as that of the US, it noted. Read more at news.yahoo.com

 

#Peakoil Are you ready?

Clipped from www.youtube.com

#1 CNN CNN Special Investigation -OUT OF GAS

See more at www.youtube.com

 

BP: Oil is Infinite #peakoil

Clipped from en.wikipedia.org

Dr. Christoph Rühl, Chief economist of BP, repeatedly uttered strong doubts about the peak oil hypothesis:[155] Physical peak oil, which I have no reason to accept as a valid statement either on theoretical, scientific or ideological grounds, would be insensitive to prices. (...)In fact the whole hypothesis of peak oil – which is that there is a certain amount of oil in the ground, consumed at a certain rate, and then it's finished – does not react to anything.... (Global Warming) is likely to be more of a natural limit than all these peak oil theories combined. (...) Peak oil has been predicted for 150 years. It has never happened, and it will stay this way.

Peak oil

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. This concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells. The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time usually grows exponentially until the rate peaks and then declines—sometimes rapidly—until the field is depleted. This concept is derived from the Hubbert curve, and has been shown to be applicable to the sum of a nation’s domestic production rate, and is similarly applied to the global rate of petroleum production. Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply. Read more at en.wikipedia.org

 

Another incomplete project -Energy

Clipped from en.wikipedia.org

Project Independence

Project Independence was an initiative announced by U.S. President Richard Nixon on November 7, 1973[1], in reaction to the OPEC oil embargo and the resulting 1973 oil crisis. Recalling the Manhattan Project, the stated goal of Project Independence was to achieve energy self-sufficiency for the United States by 1980[2] through a national commitment to energy conservation and development of alternative sources of energy.[3] Nixon declared that American science, technology and industry could free America from dependence on imported oil [4](energy independence).

Some of the important initiatives to emerge from Project Independence included lowering highway speeds to 55 mph (89 km/h), converting oil power plants to coal, completion of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and diverting federal funds from highway construction to mass transit[3]. Read more at en.wikipedia.org

 

FORD 80mpg turbo biodiesel in Europe

Biodiesel can be used for this car. Why didnt FORD produce this for the USA?

Clipped from www.dailytech.com

Auto Ford Announces 80mpg Turbodiesel Focus… for Europe Brandon Hill (Blog) - April 6, 2011 5:17 PM

Europe gets all the goodies when it comes to diesel vehicles Read more at www.dailytech.com

 

History of American Empire #teaparty

Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.

First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian "collateral damage." War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as "accidental" or "unavoidable."

Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending "freedom" but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as in Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.

Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as "terrorism," "atrocities against civilians," or "ethnic cleansing," but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to "end" a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington's double standard maintains that an U.S. ally's action by definition "defensive," but that an enemy's retaliation is by definition "offensive."

Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into "friends" and "foes," and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.

Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.

Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries' internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.

One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that "people like us" could not commit atrocities against civilians.

German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people.
British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.
Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.
Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.
U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.

Clipped from academic.evergreen.edu

Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions. First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian "collateral damage." War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as "accidental" or "unavoidable." Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending "freedom" but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as in Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking. Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as "terrorism," "atrocities against civilians," or "ethnic cleansing," but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to "end" a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington's double standard maintains that an U.S. ally's action by definition "defensive," but that an enemy's retaliation is by definition "offensive." Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into "friends" and "foes," and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role. Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions. Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries' internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions. One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that "people like us" could not commit atrocities against civilians. German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people. British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia. Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere. Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese. Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians. U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.

A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS

The list and briefing are also available as a powerpoint presentation.

Below the list is a Briefing on the History of U.S. Military Interventions. Read more at academic.evergreen.edu

 

Carlyle Group Owns 28% of Vivendi->NBC

Hmmm. Military and defense portfolio heavy Carlyle owns one of the 5 major media channels in the USA. And they capitulated completely to Bush and the Iraq War....

NBC Universal...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Universal

Comcast now owns 51% of NBC Universal while GE owns 49%

GE also owns MSNBC

Clipped from www.sourcewatch.org

bought a 28% share of France-based health care and business publisher Vivendi Universal Publishing.

Carlyle Group

Although the majority of the firm's money is in North America, it is also pushing more intensely overseas, launching funds aimed at Asia, Europe, Latin America, and Russia. The firm (along with [[[Apax Partners]] and UK-based Cinven) bought a 28% share of France-based health care and business publisher Vivendi Universal Publishing. One of the company's larger moves overseas is the purchase of the transportation business of The Daiei, Japan's #2 retailer in which the company has a 90 percent stake, worth $28 million.[7] Read more at www.sourcewatch.org

 

US Defense Spending 01-09 DOUBLED!

Wow. Crash a few airplanes into the Pentagon, important skyscrapers, and in a field in PA and you can give CARTE BLANCHE to the Pentagon to spend as much as possible.

Clipped from armscontrolcenter.org

U.S. Defense Spending, 2001-2009

See more at armscontrolcenter.org

 

Cut Military Spending & Tax the Wealthy

URL:  http://www.thenation.com/blog/159757/tax-rich-not-poor

 

 

Meanwhile, a majority of Americans prefer cutting defense spending to reduce the deficit rather than stealing retirees’ funds or axing health programs. Another poll conducted by 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair shows that 61 percent of Americans want taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to addressing the deficit. The next most popular strategy is cutting defense spending.

US Spends More on Education Than Defense

$900B spent on education in 2011. How many does that employ?

Clipped from www.usgovernmentspending.com

Education Spending Chart

See more at www.usgovernmentspending.com

 

US Defense: $765B Budget, Employs 600k

Defense budget of $765B employs 600000 Americans. Hmm. Thats $1,275,000 per person. Those are GOOD paying jobs!!! I wonder what the comparison is in other industries...

Clipped from www.dailykos.com

Another great clip: Stephen Colbert takes on defense spending

Stephen Colbert again had a masterful segment last night focusing on the out-of-control defense spending.

Keep in mind, the defense industry employs over 600,000 people.  These are American jobs, in American factories, making American instruments of destruction that are as American as napalm pie.  (Just Like Mom Used To Drop)  So, it is so important we cannot cut defense, because developing, building, and selling weapons is a perpetual money-making machine.  ("War Is Sell.") You see, we give the Defense Department billions to develop new weapons to protect us from potential enemies.  A few years later, we sell those weapons to countries all over the world, including potential enemies.  Then, we have no choice but to manufacture newer, better weapons to protect ourselves from what we just sold.  (The Circle Of Taking Life) You know, that reminds me.  This year's defense budget was only $725 billion.  That's not nearly enough!  I hear Saudi Arabia has F-15s now!  They're going to use them to come after our strategic reserve of scrap and trash!  (Oh No!  Not Baltimore!) Read more at www.dailykos.com

 

US Defense: $765B Budget, Employs 600000

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/071001-jobcreation.pdf

 

 

A view is often expressed that the military budget is a cornerstone of the U.S. economy. The Pentagon is often said to be a major underwriter of, and stimulus to, important technical innovations.
It is also often cited as a major employer, providing good jobs—jobs that are stable and at least decently paid—to millions of Americans.