From the ashes of World War II, three institutions were created as linchpins of a new global order. Now, in an unusual move, the top official in one — the U.N. secretary-general — is pressing for major changes in the other two. Antonio Guterres says the International Monetary Fund has benefited rich countries instead of poor ones. And he describes the IMF and World Bank’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic as a “glaring failure” that left dozens of countries deeply indebted. Guterres’ criticisms were issued ahead of meetings called by French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris next week to address reforms of the multilateral development banks and other issues.
  • 133arc585English
    22·
    1 year ago

    You aren’t defending someone you’re defending a hugely powerful and influential country.

    You’re being pedantic and this adds nothing.

    I guess debate with a true believer is pointless as your views are entrenched.

    You’re not giving me the benefit of the doubt, and are making assumptions about me. My views are not set in stone, and are subject to change; just because they don’t change easily or without any sort of logical or evidence-backed reasoning, doesn’t mean they can’t change. No need to assume poorly of other people.

    Invade to get their money back?

    Sure, or fund and create coups to install people in positions of power that will help extract value from natural resources and funnel the money out of the country like the IMF does. Or tell their other trading partners they must cease trading with them, even when doing so may cause famine and deaths due to starvation or lack of medical attention or any other issues; punishment there is the goal.

    Why would it be paranoid to question the motives of any country that is vying for power?

    It’s not paranoid to question the motives. It’s paranoid to assume that the evidence that their motives are not misaligned is somehow faulty. Again, you’ve only given hypotheticals and asked “What happens if China does this?”; you haven’t given any reason to assume that any of those hypotheticals are in any way likely. Further, I’ve pointed to reasons to think they aren’t likely.

    The few people who run these countries be it China or the US don’t have the average working mans interests at heart, power and keeping their populace under control are their primary motivators.

    This is a needlessly cynical take. The USA’s hegemonic power funnels money into the hands of a few disgustingly wealthy and powerful individuals, and its policy is sculpted to benefit those same people at the expense of the rest of the populace (and world). China doesn’t worship billionaires; quite the opposite in fact, it despises them and works to prevent capitalist exploitation that’s required to become so insanely wealthy. It seems you don’t believe that any country might actually want to better the lives of its citizens, and that every good action is somehow just a thinly veiled act to stay in power. I’m sorry you’re so pessimistic. No country is perfect, but some are markedly less evil and are aligned with human interests, not the interests of capital.