| The instances of abuse of power within the IMF are many. Their Structural Adjustment Policies leave many countries at the mercy of the above-mentioned institutions. These SAPs Force countries to essentially liquidate their assets to pay back just the interest on their loans. Beyond liquidation of public assets, social spending on things like healthcare and social services are cut as well. Activists in Washington, during the protests of the IMF and World Bank, carried signs accusing them of being loan sharks and likening them to gangsters. This sort of exploitation can only benefit the rich. The first things that get cut are when the undemocratic IMF/World Bank step into key positions in governments and ministries is social spending. Many programs for education, health care and environment are scrapped to repay the interest on loans. Secondly, tariffs are lifted to pay back debt. The government ceases collection of taxes on imports; thus removing all economic viability of buying locally made products. The third of many things these SAPs achieve is the reorienting of a countries economy from sustenance to export. The lands that could be used for food are now being used for cash crops such as coffee and cotton. A report by commissioned by the Carnegie Commission to prevent the spread of deadly conflict says that: �Recent World Bank analyses are calling into question the widely accepted theory, developed by Simon Kuznets, that rising growth in poor countries leads automatically to rising inequality; the relationship also seems to depend on the capacity and willingness of governments to pursue sound policies.� Of course the World Bank would question such an allegation. They would be foolish not to. It should be clarified that the bank is referring to structural adjustment programs when they say �sound policies.� During the 1980�s the IMF lent a lot of money to over 60 countries to bail them out of financial crisis. This gave the IMF leverage to begin designing economic policies, which these countries must follow to the letter, in order to get loans, international assistance, and debt relief. To increase exports, countries are encouraged to give tax breaks and subsidies to export industries. Assets such as forestland and government utilities are sold off to foreign investors at rock bottom prices. Many of these countries have debts five to ten times that of their gross domestic product. This is what Treanor calls contract maximalisation. He offers an example of this Neoliberal practice: �The privatization of the British railway network, formerly run by one state-owned company, led to 30, 000 new contracts. Most of these were probably generated, by splitting up services which could have been included in block contracts. (A fanatic neoliberal would prefer not to buy a cup of coffee, but negotiate separately for each microlitre).� Of course these third world governments probably aren�t neoliberal, they are just pawns in a bigger picture. This can be seen here in the United States. The 50 Years is Enough Organization reports that �because of free trade, wages, adjusted for inflation are lower now than in 1979� and that �the wealth of the world�s 350 billionaires equals that of 50% of the world�s population.� It�s a sobering statistic. And the recent media concentrations brought about by the 1996 United States Telecommunications act only exacerbate the problem of capitalism taking precedence over democracy. The consolidation of media, which is already heavily consolidated, makes it harder for people to get the facts needed about globalization to make informed decisions about it. Tune into any station on the radio or television (paid services excluded), any national magazine, and ask where the debate on these issues is. The debate isn�t there because the corporations that are committing the atrocities also own the vehicles for dissent against them, thus ending national debate and reflection. According to Ted Turner, in a speech given at Brown University: �[Media Concentration] is a frightening thing. It�s owned more and more by Disney, General Electric�Westinghouse, which now owns CBS. You have two of the four major networks owned by people that have huge investments in nuclear power and nuclear weapons: Both GE and Westinghouse. What kind of a balanced story are they going to give you on the news about the nuclear issues.� Ironically, Turner�s company is now co-owner of one of the largest media concentrations on the planet. What does all of this mean for the globalization process? Robert McChesney says that the Telecommunications Act will lead to deregulation, as it has already started to do. This deregulation: �will lead to merger activity, increased concentration, and continued �downsizing.� And, as the U.S. 1996 Telecommunications Act �unleashes� the U.S. based transnational media and communication firms to grow through mergers and acquisitions with minimal fear of regulatory intervention, this effectively gives the green light to further consolidation of the global markets these firms dominate. As such, the U.S. Telecommunications Act is a global one.� These are all triumphs of transnational global market neo-liberalism, as practiced by capitalist democracies. These triumphs continue to build even as you read this. Dr. Parenti summarizes the process: �Designed to leave the world�s economic destiny to the tender mercy of bankers and multinational corporations, globalization is a logical extension of imperialism, a victory of empire over republic. International finance capital over democracy.� The world of finance capital on paper will never address the human condition in reality. The appropriate question to ask might be: is global market liberalism compatible with democracy? I think it�s important to realize that the world�s corporate elite and the organizations that support them, namely the IMF, World Bank and the World Trade Organization, have an agenda that serves none but themselves. Humanity, as a whole, is never figured into the �Free trade/finance capital� equation. These corporations and their support organizations would have you believe that it�s all because of big government. Noam Chomsky explains that this is far from the truth. He writes about how, today, the world�s corporations want people to believe that the real cause of social problems in the world are the centralized governments. He says, �When you�ve got private tyrannies around, the only institution that at least in part reflects public involvement, that can cope with them, is the federal government.� He argues that what is occurring is �Devolution � The effort to reduce decision making to the state level.� Chomsky argues that with private companies there is no almost no way for the public to influence decisions within the company by votes or the like (In other words most regulatory mechanisms are internally controlled). This is the dilemma with private institutions running society. There is no accountability. |