The World now has another reason to hate US (world bank)

Page 1 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 May 2007, 8:40 pm

Bush chooses new World Bank boss



US President George W Bush has chosen Robert Zoellick, former deputy secretary of state, to be president of the World Bank, US officials say.

Mr Zoellick would replace Paul Wolfowitz, who resigned amid a scandal over his role in winning a new pay and promotion package for his girlfriend.

Mr Wolfowitz will leave the post at the end of June.

Mr Bush will name Mr Zoellick on Wednesday, and expects the Bank's board to accept him, an aide told Reuters.

Chief aide

Meanwhile, AFP quoted a government source as saying that Mr Zoellick's "experience and long career in international trade, finance and diplomacy make him uniquely prepared to take on this challenge".

They added: "He has the trust and respect of many officials around the world and believes deeply in the World Bank's mission of tackling poverty."

As deputy secretary of state, Mr Zoellick was chief aide to Condoleezza Rice between February 2005 and June last year.

He is also an ex-US trade representative and is currently an executive at the investment bank Goldman Sachs.

Earlier this week Mr Wolfowitz told the BBC that an "overheated" atmosphere at the bank and in the media forced him to resign.

The outgoing head, whose appointment was originally opposed by many European nations, said the bank's board did accept that he had acted ethically, and in good faith.

And he told the BBC World Service that his own actions were not the root cause of his departure.

-----------


as an aside: he's a lawyer (this is a reference to another discussion in the other world bank thread).



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 May 2007, 8:43 pm

also an interesting note: there has only been one president who has not been american...and that was james wolfensohn from 1995 to 2005.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 May 2007, 10:14 pm

Zoellick??? Crap! Stupid Bush!! ! I would have preferred an actual economist to deal with this issue, not just another Bush crony. Maybe, just maybe Europe will reject this man.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 May 2007, 10:19 pm

doesn't he have a history working with the WTO and the secretary of treasury? that's some economic experience...right? or are those positions he's held actually garbage roles that are used to claim experience in economic dealings when really he hasn't a clue?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 May 2007, 10:27 pm

skafather84 wrote:
doesn't he have a history working with the WTO and the secretary of treasury? that's some economic experience...right? or are those positions he's held actually garbage roles that are used to claim experience in economic dealings when really he hasn't a clue?

Zoellick does have some history working in trade and with Goldman-Sachs, a banking firm, he also worked with the secretary of the treasury. My major problems with him are that I believe that better people could have taken the position, and I think that Zoellick is not likely to help our reputation, although he is not always considered a neo-con himself, he is closely related to them and he is more focused on seeking advantage for US groups than what I see as the right choice as well in terms of his ideology.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 May 2007, 10:42 pm

so my initial assumption that he's just a crony that bush is promoting is generally correct?


bush doesn't strike me as an executive type person, really. i mean...he doesn't seem like he actually has the critical thinking abilities to judge people and actually pick who is best suited.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 May 2007, 12:49 am

skafather84 wrote:
so my initial assumption that he's just a crony that bush is promoting is generally correct?

bush doesn't strike me as an executive type person, really. i mean...he doesn't seem like he actually has the critical thinking abilities to judge people and actually pick who is best suited.

Yeah, I would say so.



jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,964
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

30 May 2007, 1:12 pm

He's not an economist, although he seems to have some experience on trade issues. To be honest, because of the Democrats holding Congress and holding the Wolfowitz thing over the White House's head it would probably be much harder to get a person more known for his economic views through.

skafather84 wrote:
bush doesn't strike me as an executive type person, really. i mean...he doesn't seem like he actually has the critical thinking abilities to judge people and actually pick who is best suited.


I doubt Bush was the only person that interviewed Zollick, although this is certainly interesting point. I don't think this is one of Bush's strong points. Bush is very personable, and people who have met him (with the sort of exception of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil) have described him as able to carry on discussions intelligently. Bush would not be alone among American presidents in having this issue (Reagan, Eisenhower, and FDR all made questionable cabinet and/or Supreme Court picks from their own perspective. To a certain degree it's unavoidable).

ADDENDUM: I don't disagree that cronyism, political considers, or Bush's own not always libertarian economic policy considers may have played a part.

I think the world really needs to stop hating the United States and looking what causes there own problems. I certainly feel that certain US policies, such as who fully outdated US subsidies for farmers (that mostly go to massive operations that don't need them anyway), and protectionist policies cause inadvertent damage to persons in other countries. But most of the poverty or despair in other countries is caused by those countries internal policies. Admittedly, some of these countries are run by tyrants like Robert Mugabe. However, Africa, and Latin America are far freer then they were compared to the 1970s. It is important to remember that attacks on the United States by many of the statesman of these lands are little more then extremist nationalist excuses to attempt direct attention any from their own failed economic policies (witness Hugo Chavez for example).

Of course the many of the despots themselves, such as Basir Assad of Syria (who just won an "election" without an opposition candidate with over 97% of the vote) already use the United States, the demean West, and Israel as their excuse for every problem in the world.



matheux
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 19
Location: North Carolina

01 Jun 2007, 8:56 pm

Who heads the World Bank is not what's wrong. The very existence of the World Bank is what's wrong.

You can't fight poverty by lending. A loan puts the borrower in slavery to the lender. If the bank lends everyone $100, it exacts, say, $120 in repayment, and everyone will end up $20 poorer. Then they fight each other to get the $20 that they don't have.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Jun 2007, 9:35 pm

matheux wrote:
Who heads the World Bank is not what's wrong. The very existence of the World Bank is what's wrong.

You can't fight poverty by lending. A loan puts the borrower in slavery to the lender. If the bank lends everyone $100, it exacts, say, $120 in repayment, and everyone will end up $20 poorer. Then they fight each other to get the $20 that they don't have.



it's called usury.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jun 2007, 9:43 pm

matheux wrote:
Who heads the World Bank is not what's wrong. The very existence of the World Bank is what's wrong.

You can't fight poverty by lending. A loan puts the borrower in slavery to the lender. If the bank lends everyone $100, it exacts, say, $120 in repayment, and everyone will end up $20 poorer. Then they fight each other to get the $20 that they don't have.

Actually you can. A loan provides immediate funds for investment that the borrower can use to promote beneficial projects that ultimately pay for the loan. Let's just say I take out a loan to start a business like some people do. I take out that loan, not because I like slavery to a lender but rather because I think that the cost of the loan will be less than the benefits of my business and ultimately to enrich everyone. If you take Mohammad Yunus's efforts to be effective though then you should already know that lending helps fight poverty, but at the very least, you should recognize that financial institutions such as banks are set up due to the interests of both parties, to claim otherwise is to argue the ridiculous. The real question does not go to lending, which does in many cases improve the world, but rather to how we should deal with the third world, World Bank does more than lend it also tells its lenders how to use funds in some cases which can be seen as wise or unwise.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jun 2007, 9:45 pm

skafather84 wrote:
it's called usury.
It is called taking out a loan. Usury is somewhat arbitrary as both sides ultimately have to agree to the conditions set up. The only issue with World Bank is its great importance and the issue of them possibly pushing for bad advice. I really don't view the loan issue as a problem considering that they were not set up for profit anyway.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Jun 2007, 9:48 pm

jimservo wrote:
He's not an economist, although he seems to have some experience on trade issues. To be honest, because of the Democrats holding Congress and holding the Wolfowitz thing over the White House's head it would probably be much harder to get a person more known for his economic views through.

skafather84 wrote:
bush doesn't strike me as an executive type person, really. i mean...he doesn't seem like he actually has the critical thinking abilities to judge people and actually pick who is best suited.


I doubt Bush was the only person that interviewed Zollick, although this is certainly interesting point. I don't think this is one of Bush's strong points. Bush is very personable, and people who have met him (with the sort of exception of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil) have described him as able to carry on discussions intelligently. Bush would not be alone among American presidents in having this issue (Reagan, Eisenhower, and FDR all made questionable cabinet and/or Supreme Court picks from their own perspective. To a certain degree it's unavoidable).



bush is a personable guy. i never denied such a thing. and i agree, i doubt bush was the only one...but bush chooses those who surround him and bush has the final word....so it's not like as if you'll be getting a diverse set of opinions on the matter. as far as carry on discussions intelligently...i'd want to see that for myself before i said yes or no on it. and i hated reagan...and fdr was the only president to have a third term...as*hole. eisenhower....i'm honestly not familiar enough with him to make a fair assessment. but i'm not a huge fan (read: i hate) of either fdr or reagan.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Jun 2007, 9:51 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
it's called usury.
It is called taking out a loan. Usury is somewhat arbitrary as both sides ultimately have to agree to the conditions set up. The only issue with World Bank is its great importance and the issue of them possibly pushing for bad advice. I really don't view the loan issue as a problem considering that they were not set up for profit anyway.


if you take out the loan, that means that both sides agree to the conditions set up....if one side didn't, the loan wouldn't take place.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jun 2007, 10:28 pm

skafather84 wrote:
if you take out the loan, that means that both sides agree to the conditions set up....if one side didn't, the loan wouldn't take place.

Well, right, exactly. The issue becomes a bigger one with nations though, as we are loaning partially out of concern for these people and thus we want them to benefit, not only that but we also don't want them to take our money and bail either.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jun 2007, 10:34 pm

I might not feel so bad about Zoellick after reading a few articles about him that have portrayed him as hard-working and capable of making things better. He has some advantages over Wolfowitz, but then again there were people who thought Wolfowitz would work out well.