Dismay at Wolfowitz's nomination

[Svidrigailov]

Originally Posted by Larrison

Don't you mean the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and not the world bank?

hahaha...yes...i did mean the IMF

nevermind the whole argentina spiel...

[ThatReallyHurt]

I am disturbingly ignorant of the power players in American politics. I have, however, read Richard Clarke's book which certainly doesn't paint a good picture of Wolfowitz. Makes him look like someone who was basically begging to go to war in Iraq while disregarding any credible information that indicated that Iraq had nothing worth invading for.

That being said, Wolfowitz reminds me of one of those people who could do an excellent job for an agency like the world bank, as long as he "used his powers for good instead of evil" (to steal a cheezy cliche).

Either way, I think we'll know pretty quickly what direction his leadership will take.

[jeff]

You can also think of neo-cons as being interventionalist for political purposes, contrasted with traditional conservatism (WF Buckley). As recently as the Clinton administration, the conservative viewpoint was "it's not in our vital interest so we shouldn't deal with Bosnia/Kosovo/etc", while neo-cons today have triumphalist talk of exporting free market capitalism and democracy to the rest of the world. FWIW, Buckley has increasingly expressed his dissatisfaction with our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

What exactly is a "neo-con"?

I haven't found a reliable definition, and it's high time I made the effort to understand what people are talking about. Some places I've seen it used, it seems to be just a euphemism for "jewish," while other places seem to use it to mean "reactionary," and others use it to mean "progressive." I'm probably just confused, which wouldn't be the first time!

There is quite a bit of confusion. The term neo-con is used for a group of people (usually consisting of the people who manufacture and supply arms) who actively support spreading U.S.-style democracy through any means necessary while preferring immediate military "intervention" particularly in the mideast.

The confusion comes out of the fact that the origins of the neo-cons has its roots in avid support for U.S. backed Israel and increasing Israel's power and influence in the MidEast region.

The term neo-con has probably been appropriated because they (neo-cons) tend to be morally conservative (read faux Christians) of the Republican persuasion yet seem to have no concern for mounting large deficits to support the war effort.

The liberal translation of the term neo-con: A bunch of greedy, fake christian, nationalist, chicken-hawk warmongers profiting off of America's military aggression.

[PeterGustafsson]

Originally Posted by Larrison

By the World Bank's own assessment, 59% of its investment programs in the 1990s failed (this is out of the 2000 Metzler report).

Considering that WB specializes in countries with long-term ongoing economic problems, often corrupted, this may not be so shockingly bad after all. What is the success percentage of projects funded by ordinary banks in such countries?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

You can also think of neo-cons as being interventionalist for political purposes, contrasted with traditional conservatism (WF Buckley). As recently as the Clinton administration, the conservative viewpoint was "it's not in our vital interest so we shouldn't deal with Bosnia/Kosovo/etc", while neo-cons today have triumphalist talk of exporting free market capitalism and democracy to the rest of the world. FWIW, Buckley has increasingly expressed his dissatisfaction with our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I knew there was a reason I liked Buckley...

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Considering that WB specializes in countries with long-term ongoing economic problems, often corrupted, this may not be so shockingly bad after all. What is the success percentage of projects funded by ordinary banks in such countries?

Last time I looked (a few years ago), depending upon the country, the IB, and the stage of the project, the failure rate was from 10-30%.

However, and its a good point -- Investment Banks (IB's) won't invest in some situations. However, I don't believe that the WB will invest in such situations either, although their limit is a bit looser it seems.

[jeff]

Very off-topic: for a confused moment I interpreted "WB" as "Warner Brothers", which would put a different spin on things, eh? Jack Warner wasn't that ambitious, but it would be interesting to see if the WB cartoon characters could be more effective (Policy by Bugs Bunny, explained by Elmer Fudd?)

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Very off-topic: for a confused moment I interpreted "WB" as "Warner Brothers", which would put a different spin on things, eh? Jack Warner wasn't that ambitious, but it would be interesting to see if the WB cartoon characters could be more effective (Policy by Bugs Bunny, explained by Elmer Fudd?)

Daffy Duck would be a better choice. He whipped the Tasmanian Devil over a mere pittance. There's a fellow who knows how to look after money!

[Have At You]

I'd like to hear Porky Pig's p-p-p-policy views on p-p-price supports for countries in the de-de-de-dev-dev-third world.

And Sylvester would, I am certain, have soundbites on the structure of socio-systemic supply strata.

Bugs Bunny, being such a smarmy wiseasz, would of course be the press liaison.

[Larrison]

Seriously Dudes, there's an old Warner Brother's cartoon with Elmer Fudd explaining the differences between capitalism and communism, done back in the heights of the cold war.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


FWIIW:
Two European labor party Prime Ministers, those of Germany and Sweden, have withinh the last few days expressed themselves positively about PW. Schröder promised not to block the nomination, and Persson said that one should give everybody a chance, including PW.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson