The "free" market

Joycey

Out of interest, how would advocates of absolutely no governmental, or any other supposedly non-profit organisation, regulation of the global market, propose to prevent (presumably obvious) travesties such as those outlined by this piece:
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man?

But especially this paragraph

JOHN PERKINS: Well, the company I worked for was a company named Chas. T. Main in Boston, Massachusetts. We were about 2,000 employees, and I became its chief economist. I ended up having fifty people working for me. But my real job was deal-making. It was giving loans to other countries, huge loans, much bigger than they could possibly repay. One of the conditions of the loan—let’s say a $1 billion to a country like Indonesia or Ecuador—and this country would then have to give ninety percent of that loan back to a U.S. company, or U.S. companies, to build the infrastructure—a Halliburton or a Bechtel. These were big ones. Those companies would then go in and build an electrical system or ports or highways, and these would basically serve just a few of the very wealthiest families in those countries. The poor people in those countries would be stuck ultimately with this amazing debt that they couldn’t possibly repay. A country today like Ecuador owes over fifty percent of its national budget just to pay down its debt. And it really can’t do it. So, we literally have them over a barrel. So, when we want more oil, we go to Ecuador and say, “Look, you’re not able to repay your debts, therefore give our oil companies your Amazon rain forest, which are filled with oil.” And today we’re going in and destroying Amazonian rain forests, forcing Ecuador to give them to us because they’ve accumulated all this debt. So we make this big loan, most of it comes back to the United States, the country is left with the debt plus lots of interest, and they basically become our servants, our slaves. It’s an empire. There’s no two ways about it. It’s a huge empire. It’s been extremely successful.

Is it really the position that a deal such as this was entered into by equal economic actors who had all information and can thus be considered valid?

If this example (the pillaging of equador's resources and the produce of the peoples labour by US corporate interests) differs from the conditions of a fair contract, in what way?

Simply saying that this is unfair on the people of Equador because they are enslaved by a government which steals from them through taxation doesnt work, because how else would you account for the fact that the Amazon rainforest should be a protected asset of the people who live in Equador (at the very least), and not a new capital making frontier for corporations.

Do some or all of you actually agree with the paying of countries' debts such as Brazil and Equador or do you think they should tell these companies and the IMF to f*ck themselves? If you dont agree with the debts why not?

silverharp

interesting guy , there is a very good interview with him here based on his book confessions of an economic hitman

http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/2005/Perkins.html

mp3 link
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2005-0507-2.mp3



I'm not a 100% clear on your question but wouldnt have a problem with these countries defaulting on their debts. As perkins lays out his case the the US was involved in the very worst form of mercantilism which any fascist regime would nod in agreement.

Mahatma coat

thats A very good book, it outlines the process so clearly and simply, its a wonder how they got away with it for so long

Oh yeah, Ignorance and Apathy on our parts :rolleyes:

DeVore

Because we dont deserve to be the dominant species on this planet and probably wont be for much longer geologically speaking.

To quote Ripley, you dont see them screwing each other over for a percentage.


DeV.