Who does the World Bank work for ?

World Bank Privatises Third World Water Rights by Maude Barlow Toronto Globe and Mail Several years ago, Ismail Serageldin, Vice-President of the World Bank, said that the wars of the 21st century will be about water. He was referring to the fact that the world is running out of fresh water sources at an alarming rate, and that[short of breakthroughs in technology] conflict over what remains will be inevitable. To respond to the crisis, the World Bank has recently adopted a policy of water privatisation and full-[inflated]cost water pricing. This policy is causing great distress in many Third World countries, which fear[rightly so] that their citizens will not be able to afford the cost of privatised water. Two years ago, the World Bank (whose official attends Bolivian Government cabinet meetings as a full[and un-elected] paticipant) refused to guarantee a $25,000,000 loan to refinance water services in Cochabamba, Bolivia's third-largest city, unless the government sold the public water system to the private sector and passed on the costs to consumers. Only one bid was considered, and the utility was turned over to a subsidiary of a conglomerate led by Bechtel[;0P] - the giant engineering company implicated in the infamous Three Gorges Dam in China, which has caused the forced relocation of 1,300,000 people. In January 1999, before the company had even hung up its shingle, it announced the doubling of water prices[Those Fat CEO salaries gotta come from somewhere]. For most Bolivians, this meant that water would now cost more than food; for those on a minimum wage or unemployed, water bills suddenly accounted for close to half their monthly budgets[Sound like another ivory thinktank population control measure of the month; Can you believe American Tax $$$ go to support this kind of non-profit(yeah, right) garbage?] To add insult to injury, the World Bank granted monopolies to private water concessionaires, annouced its support for full-cost water pricing, pegged the cost of water to the US dollar, and declared that none of its loan could be subsidise the poor for water services. All water, even from community wells, required permits to access, and peasants and small farmers even had to buy permits to gather rainwater on their property[talk about over-regulation]. This is a story unfolding in many parts of the world. Just as humanity is beginning to come to terms with the awesome dimensions of the looming fresh-water crisis, a handful of transnational[i.e for the most part heartless] water and food corporations, backed by the World Bank, are moving in on third world countries and, in the name of human charity, commodifying their water for profit. These corporations openly dominated the UN/World Bank-sponsored World Water[Giveaway] Forum in the Hague in March. The privatisation of municipal water[and energy] services has a terrible record that is well documented. Customer rates are doubled or tripled; corporate profits rise as much as 700%; corruption and bribery are rampant; water quality standards drop, sometimes dramatically[Or an electrical provider will short change tree branch triming in exchange for corporate(and executive) profit later leading to massive destruction of property by fire that could have been prevented under a less greedy regime]; overuse is promoted to make money[Those with grass lawns in the South West should listen up]; and customers who can't pay are cut off. When privatisation hits the Third World, those who can't pay will die. At least the Bolivia story has a happy ending(for now). By the hundreds of thousands, Bolivians marched in Cochabamba in an anti-government protest. On April 10, They Won; the Bolivian Government kicked Bechtel out of the country and revoked its water privatisation legislation. Oscar Olivera, the Bolivian shoemaker who led the fight, had brought his message to a Washington rally during the recent IMF/World Bank meetings. He said that if water is privatised and commodified for profit, it will never reach the people who need it but will serve only to make a handful of water corporations very rich[I don't know about you but I'm getting pretty sick of the sameol monopoly routine getting played out over and over again; can't insanely rich people be a bit more creative and support innovation for once instead?] ... The World Bank's Unofficial Motto: We'll do everything in our power to make sure poverty is never eliminated ;0) __________________ The World Bank works for themselves to ensure that they only benefit themselves. __________________ Oh, Renots, dear, for once it seems we agree on something! Mark the date and time. I think the World Bank should be eliminated and also the UN. __________________ tax the heck out of the World Bank[or at least stop subsidisng their BS to the tune of $$$$$$$$$$ ;0P to the WB __________________ Who does Number Two work for? __________________ Hark! A spark of global intelligence is spoken here. I really would like to know more about the World Bank. Under what laws does it operate? __________________ Coleslaw...you beat me to it! __________________ hehehe, I thought someone else would have beaten ME to it, but alas, I am victorious! Mark up another one in the books for Commander Coleslaw! __________________ where are these books you speak of? I've never seen them, therefore I am unable to mark one up for you __________________ People who place blame on the World Bank and the IMF for the woes of the third world are looking for a scapegoat. I don't think that anybody would argue that these institutions need to be reformed in some ways, but they serve an EXTREMELY important function in the world. Calling for their dissolution is tremendously short sighted and very dangerous. People seem to feel that the austerity measures that these institutions impose upon other countries are overly harsh and unnecessary, but looking at the current conditions relative to past conditions(Which will almost inevitably appear bad) is completely unfair. One needs to compare the future that would have resulted in the absence of these institutions to the future that WILL occur thanks to these institutions. If one looks to the economic transitions of Central and Eastern Europe, EVERY country experienced a "transition recession" in which their GDP relative to 1989 fell by at least 20% by 1992 - and that was for the most successful transition countries (Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic). However since then, the successful countries have all exceeded their 1989 GDPs and have MUCH brighter prospects for future growth. If you look at the graphs of the GDP relative to 1989 for these countries, you get what is called a "J-curve" for the appearance of an initial dip and then a prosperous rise - which is common in transition economies, but ONLY when the governments of these countries are WILLING and DEDICATED participants in the transition process - an interesting way to see this is through comparing the Czech Republic and Slovakia (They went through the transition process together as Czechoslovakia until Slovakia split away on January 1, 1993 - since then, they have taken divergent paths as a result of the governmental leadership - or lack thereof - exhibited by each country). The IMF and World Bank simply can't do it by themselves. Most of these third world countries that the IMF and WB are trying to help now have VERY corrupt governments that essentially sabotage the efforts of these institutions - which leaves the burden on the citizens of these countries. It is not fair by any means, but short of RADICAL political changes in these countries, IMF and WB participation is necessary and the best option for the future. Inevitably the austerity packages CAN be too harsh as the result of incomplete information and a difficulty of understanding EVERY context, but they are valuable institutions. Anyway, sorry for the rambling post - oh yeah . . . and on the subject of the UN - it too is valuable albeit rather impotent. But as a forum for discussion and in creating SOME semblance of order in an otherwise anarchic global environment, it serves it's purpose. It allows voices to be heard that might otherwise go silent. __________________ Quote: Originally posted by Butch [B but they are valuable institutions.[/b] I think butch is working for [b]Number 2[b] if not the WB or IMF l0) see no evil, hear no evil __________________ i think we're being inflitrated from without |0; __________________ Quote: Originally posted by for20 i think we're being inflitrated from without |0; What are you talking about? Your alter ego is only a Lieutenant! __________________ ...drunk in the back with the cook. ah, those long nights at sea... __________________ [quote]Originally posted by renots [b] Quote: I think butch is working for [b]Number 2 if not the WB or IMF Actually, Butch is somewhat of an expert on Eastern European economic affairs...by that, I mean, he frequents the "Eastern European" section of the porn shops, but I ALSO mean he's studied the situation quite thoroughly (as is obvious from his mental masturbation above). Also, I would challenge anyone to call his "I can't kill a bug", "Oh, I feel bad for poor people" ass a conservative. __________________ ...i think fast-cancer centers are goin down in the not too far off future. i betting on a little company by thenameofhathaway myself ;0) __________________ Quote: Originally posted by renots ...i think fast-cancer centers are goin down in the not too far off future. i betting on a little company by thenameofhathaway myself ;0) I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow...less obliquely, please? __________________ ...but i'm sure you knew that already :0) __________________ Quote: Originally posted by renots Quote: Originally posted by Butch [B but they are valuable institutions. I think butch is working for [b]Number 2 if not the WB or IMF l0) see no evil, hear no evil Renots - It's very easy to use the WB and IMF as scapegoats when you blind yourself to the evidence, isn't it? By the way, you mentioned that you were going to stick to Berkshire Hathaway stock - but . . . ummmmm . . . Warren Buffett is an evil capitalist, isn't he? And by his own admission, Buffett doesn't know much at all about the "new economy," that is why Berkshire Hathaway does not have many tech or internet holdings (if any). If I remember correctly, you have mentioned that the internet and "new economy" is the future (I believe you mentioned that in response to Pennypinch's example using the steel industry to demonstrate inflationary pressures caused by interest rate cuts) - does that make much sense to invest in Berk then? Of course you can always take in some pretty good dividends from Berk stock, but that's little consolation when you see many many stocks outperforming Berk. Just some free advice (c: PENNY - You'd head for the Eastern European porn too if you'd been there!! Yikes . . . Eastern European women are just . . . ummm . . . yum . . . hehe. The ugliest women there are pretty much the equivalent to average-looking American women. __________________ Quote: Originally posted by Butch By the way, you mentioned that you were going to stick to Berkshire Hathaway stock is that your final answer? BRRRRRR you do not pass Go, you do not collect 1 million dollars never mentioned the word berkshire once in my post :0) __________________ Quote: Originally posted by renots ...i think fast-cancer centers are goin down in the not too far off future. i betting on a little company by thenameofhathaway myself ;0) Please excuse me . . . I assumed you were being sarcastic with your use of "little" and referring to Berkshire Hathaway - but if ya meant the Hathaway that makes instruments and motion control products for the energy industry, welp . . . good luck. __________________ Quote: Originally posted by Butch [Eastern European women are just . . . ummm . . . yum . . . hehe. ;0}