Privatizatizing Water: Another World Bank Disaster

[Oerdin]

Apparently it does but in this case it is sad and short sighted. Saddam's presience is weighting down Iraq's economic progress. Once he's out of the picture and a new secular government is in place then Iraq will be set to rejoin the world economy and economic growth will be set to take off.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Oerdin - yes you can.

Take cares for example

Everyone is like 'minimum gas mileage in certain classes'. We need to research alternate cell cars. Instead of subsidizing alternate cell cars and putting limits on mileage, tax cars which use gas and tax cars on a progressive scale if their mileage is over a certain point.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Molly: I can only say that you are sorely in need of rereading history books because you evidientally missed major themes the first time around.

At first this could be hidden from the world by using subsidies but eventually the economy became so bad that the socialists forced nationally owned comapnies to hire tens of thousands of unneeded works as a way of lowering the sky high unemployment rate the socialist's incompetence had created. the socialists also put political appointicies in charge of companies instead of people who had experience managing the industries in question. .

I ask for dates and facts, you give me rhetoric...

Who nationalized, for instance, Rolls Royce, and why?

Edward Heath's Conservative government in 1971, to save the privately owned firm from bankruptcy.

Which government presided over the highest post WWII unemployment figures?

Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government. Officially put at 3.8 million people out of work, owing to government decreed massaging of figures, the real figure was 4 million. At least twice as many as were out of work under any previous post war socialist administration.

When unemployment reached 1 million under a Labour government, this was seen as shameful- the Tories came to power under the slogan 'Labour isn't working' in 1979. Yet under Thatcher, Great Britain evidently wasn't working, because her policies tripled the number of unemployed.

Which government was in power when house repossessions reached a record high?

Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government.

Evidently the history books you read miss out some major facts.

Such as conservative political appointees being hired to run quangoes- a way that a Conservative government could pretend it was against big government whilst simultaneously creating sinecures for the party faithful, lap dog civil servants and political toadies.

Such as political appointees being installed as governors of the B.B.C.- something which never fails to amuse me whenever yet another crusty conservative bemoans the supposed left-wing bias of the B.B.C. .

Such as political appointees being hired to run newly privatized industries- then voting themselves triple salary increases within the space of two years- as water authority chairman did.

I don't think I missed much when I lived in Great Britain- I had the misfortune to be coming back from a highly enjoyable Roxy Music Manifesto tour concert to the news that Thatcher had been elected Prime Minister in 1979, and was in Great Britain throughout the years of misrule, the Falklands fiasco (partly caused by Conservative government cost-cutting sending the wrong signals to the Argentinian junta), the Poll Tax riots (if only Thatcher had believed in 'society' she might have read or understood history and recalled what happened when the first poll tax was introduced), record unemployment, the reappearance of beggars on the streets of major cities, the closing down of facilities for the mentally ill (ensuring the dumping of violent paranoid schizophrenics on the streets, euphemistically known as 'care in the community') and the running down of the National Health system and the railway networks.

No, I don't think I missed any major themes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government. Officially put at 3.8 million people out of work, owing to government decreed massaging of figures, the real figure was 4 million. At least twice as many as were out of work under any previous post war socialist administration.

When unemployment reached 1 million under a Labour government, this was seen as shameful- the Tories came to power under the slogan 'Labour isn't working' in 1979. Yet under Thatcher, Great Britain evidently wasn't working, because her policies tripled the number of unemployed.

You just proved Oerdin's point about leftist governments hiring people simply for the sake of hiring (leading to massive hidden employment).

[Oerdin]

1981 and 1982 were recessionary years so of course unemployment rose, however, that's were the **** hit the fan for the bloated state run companies. All the excess overhead, lack of capital investments, poor politically appointed management, and massive subsideis came to a head because the British government was no longer capable or willing to continue providing the subsidies. Without the massive subsidies the state monopolies began to fold one after another.

The state tried to find privite investors but the privite investors cherry picked the best assets only and the remaining unprofitable hulks were all forced out of business. The labor government made the mess and Thacher, along with old fashioned market forces, had to clean up the mess. That's why unemployment was so high when the conservatives took power.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Sure there were problems with borders spliting different ethnic groups and the colonial powers used their colonies for raw materials but by and large it has been a half century of total mismanagement by the African political elites which has resulted in Africa being the ****-hole that it is.

Yeah, and by and large these "little" problems like borders and draining resources are a MAJOR reason why there are civil wars and other conflicts which are no good to these countries' economies. And the policies of the IMF and WB do nothing but deepen the crisis as they only serve to put their economies in a stranglehold. Look at the AIDS crisis, a crisis which spread first in the west, but now hits Africa harder than anyone. Are they getting cheap drugs? NOOOOOOOO

Show at least SOME responsibility for the caos you have created in huge chunks of the world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Look at the AIDS crisis, a crisis which spread first in the west, but now hits Africa harder than anyone.

Say what?

[Master Zen]

AIDS as an epidemic began with the homosexual community in the US. It spread first among developed countries and only later did it hit Africa hard.

[Oerdin]

AIDS started in Africa and that is why there are so many cases there.

Also before you go blaming the IMF and the World Bank you might consider what the world would be like without a lender of last resort. Just about every third world country would default on their debt and have their economy permently ruined without the IMF bail outs. The IMF asks that the debter make certain reforms which will make a repeat of the crisis less likely and so help the country get back on its feet.

Without those intitutions the poor would most likely remain dirt poor and would never have a real chance to grow their way out of poverty.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Master Zen
AIDS as an epidemic began with the homosexual community in the US. It spread first among developed countries and only later did it hit Africa hard.

Aids was first identified in the US because the US has a better health care system and they were able to ID the new virus. Since then scientists have used DNA modeling for the virus to map it's mutations and have traced the origins back to southern Africa. They've even ID'd several possible AIDS like source viruses which infect primates in southern Africa. It is unknown how the infection spread from animals to people but it is believed the practice of eating raw "bush meat" had something to do with it. *If one had bloody gums or an ulcerated stomich then you could get infected from raw virul infected meat.*

[Oerdin]

here is a good link about the origin and spread of AIDS. Here's a quote:

So where did HIV come from? Did HIV come from an SIV?

It is now generally accepted that HIV is a descendant of simian (monkey) immunodeficiency virus (SIV). Certain simian immunodeficiency viruses bear a very close resemblance to HIV-1 and HIV-2, the two types of HIV.

For example, HIV-2 corresponds to a simian immunodeficiency virus found in the sooty mangabey monkey (SIVsm), sometimes known as the green monkey, which is indigenous to western Africa.

The more virulent strain of HIV, namely HIV-1, was until very recently more difficult to place. Until 1999 the closest counterpart that had been identified was the simian (monkey) immunodeficiency virus that was known to infect chimpanzees (SIVcpz), but this virus had significant differences between it and HIV.

Please don't let science get in the way of you blaming the US for all the world's ills. Please feel free to continue.

[Berzerker]

Oerdin -

Apparently it does but in this case it is sad and short sighted. Saddam's presience is weighting down Iraq's economic progress. Once he's out of the picture and a new secular government is in place then Iraq will be set to rejoin the world economy and economic growth will be set to take off.

That's an optimistic outlook, Saddam is a lead weight on the Iraqi economy, but not so much because he's an idiot, but because he is constantly seeking weapons for protection and the sanctions to prevent those acquisitions. Iraq was one of the more improved countries in the region until it's invasion of Iran. I say leave 'em alone, lift the sanctions, and tell him we won't tolerate invading other countries. If Bush 1 had told him that during the dispute over Kuwait side-drilling into Iraqi oil reserves, there would have been no invasion and no gulf war and Saddam wouldn't be a threat. But Bush 1 really screwed up, he sent Saddam a wishy washy message about having no treaty with Kuwait and how the US had no desire to get involved in inter-Arab disputes. Inspite of the BS some Republicans are giving us now about opposing Iraq's behavior in the 80's, the US was quite happy to help him with his war in Iran. It's not surprising Saddam thought we wouldn't mind much if he took Kuwait...He was our "friend"...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You just proved Oerdin's point about leftist governments hiring people simply for the sake of hiring (leading to massive hidden employment).

I did nothing of the sort- at no point has he shown when or how a Labour government forced or persuaded nationalized industries to employ 'extra' staff.

One expects this of conservatives- long on hot air, short on facts and figures when dealing with the damage caused by right wing economic theory.

From oerdin:

'1981 and 1982 were recessionary years so of course unemployment rose, however, that's were the **** hit the fan for the bloated state run companies. '

See, there's always someone else or something else to blame when conservative economic policies wreak havoc.

'Recessionary years'- what, these are a 'natural' occurrence are they, like tree rings, or leaf mould, or snow falling on cedars? They obviously have nothing to do with conservative economic policies, they just happen upon us out of the blue, errant whirlwinds alighting on the world scene.

Of course the small insignificant occurrence of the OPEC oil crisis in the Seventies rarely gets a look in when conservatives are lambasting socialist economic 'mismanagement' -but then John Major's corrupt, nepotistic and shambolic conservative government blamed everything and everyone else for its failures- much as Thatcher blamed the permissive Sixties for her and her government's failings. As if somehow, after three terms in office, over twenty years later, her government's ineptitude was all the fault of Roy Jenkins when he was Labour Home Secretary in 1965.

And oerdin- when the tories took power, they inherited unemployment figures one third of what they became under the tories- so get your facts right. If you're going to criticise Labour for high unemployment, be aware that under the Tories it became much, much worse.

[DuncanK]

I just saw news that the World Bank published a study that shows that Unionization improves the economy in all sorts of ways. Wow! That's a 180. I don't now if another thread should be started or not. Ming might say it's and Iraq thread.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I did nothing of the sort- at no point has he shown when or how a Labour government forced or persuaded nationalized industries to employ 'extra' staff.

Seems to be a case of seeing the forest, but not the trees.

Why do you think such unemployment just happened to get so high under conservatives? Maybe because they eliminated unnecessary jobs?

It wasn't like the growth rates were anything spectacular before Thatcher. Hidden employment may, of course, account for much of that.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin
AIDS started in Africa and that is why there are so many cases there.

Also before you go blaming the IMF and the World Bank you might consider what the world would be like without a lender of last resort. Just about every third world country would default on their debt and have their economy permently ruined without the IMF bail outs. The IMF asks that the debter make certain reforms which will make a repeat of the crisis less likely and so help the country get back on its feet.

Without those intitutions the poor would most likely remain dirt poor and would never have a real chance to grow their way out of poverty.

The poor are STILL poor with the IMF and WB existing. Most IMF reforms follow the current "fad" in economic theory (and as an economist I know this) not what is necesarily correct for each country's specific proplem, many independent studies have shown that IMF reforms were far from ideal.

Lender of last resort? where was the bailout to Argentina last year?

You are really naive to think that the IMF and WB actually care to lift the 3rd world out of poverty. They are simply institution which serve to strangle their victims to make reforms suitable to their political ends: open market economies opened to western business and a constant brain drain.

And as an EPIDEMIC, AIDS started in the USA, brought from Africa, and later brought back.

[Myrddin]

Ok, so the faceless IMF and World Bank are easy targets

However, they have to work through the governments of the recipient countries

What do you think happens when you go to a minister in a developing country and say - the transport infrastructure in your country is holding back development, we are prepared to give you $500m to help

Does he thank you and work diligently to see that the money is wisely invested?

[Arrian]

Military Advisor: The Americans fear our Migrant Worker

That's hilarious, Master Zen.

I think you're wrong about AIDS (we figured out what it was first, yeah, because we had the technology to do so).

I think you're right that colonialism did a lot to **** up Africa. I also think Oerdin is right that colonialism left a lot of those ****ed up countries with railroads, ports, etc. that they otherwise wouldn't have had. I do not see any way to accurately analyze the exact impact of either one.

-Arrian

[Master Zen]

Arrian:

I once read something about the history of AIDS, of course, there isn't any REAL answer to when or how it started but according to this, the first "confirmed" AIDS patient was a gay French-Canadian in the U.S. who had returned from Africa (probably bonked some monkeys... ). The disease spread first among the gay community in the U.S., it was called the "gay cancer" in the early 80's. Only later did it hit the 3rd world in force.

As for colonialism, I think the infrastructre has helped in the short run, however, the scars of colonialism will hurt Africa very much in the long run as there seems no end to civil wars, dictatorships etc. While those countries have unstable governments, there cannot be true development.

BTW, whenever a "Mexican" civ is introduced, the Migrant Worker will be the UU, it can join foreign cities to add to the foreign population! It also ignores borders and crosses rivers without penalty.

[Master Zen]

Myrddin:

The problem is that they don't just lend the $500m with no strings attached. The IMF and WB condition aid on the basis of certain economic and political reforms which is what I am saying only serves to suit the needs of the western countries which provide the aid.

Frankly, I am not in favor of aid at all only in the event of a severe economic collapse (i.e. Argentina). Getting money easily is not a good incentive to spend it wisely and will only result in massive indebtness for decades to come

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by molly bloom
And oerdin- when the tories took power, they inherited unemployment figures one third of what they became under the tories- so get your facts right. If you're going to criticise Labour for high unemployment, be aware that under the Tories it became much, much worse.

My facts are very straight. The Thatcher ceased providing the subsidies to the bloated, mismanaged, state run industries which the socialists had created. Since they were so bloated they couldn't compete on a level playing field and large numbers of them went out of business. If you'd like I can recommend you a few books on the subject which will help explain events to you in more detail then I can.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Master Zen
The poor are STILL poor with the IMF and WB existing. Most IMF reforms follow the current "fad" in economic theory (and as an economist I know this) not what is necesarily correct for each country's specific proplem, many independent studies have shown that IMF reforms were far from ideal.

Lender of last resort? where was the bailout to Argentina last year?

You are really naive to think that the IMF and WB actually care to lift the 3rd world out of poverty. They are simply institution which serve to strangle their victims to make reforms suitable to their political ends: open market economies opened to western business and a constant brain drain.

And as an EPIDEMIC, AIDS started in the USA, brought from Africa, and later brought back.

That's an interesting conspiracy theory you have going there Zen Master. Let us suppose for a second that business doesn't want to impoverish their customers and that they'd actually like to see decent long term growth for the money they've invested in the third world. How could they do that? Hmmm, maybe by investing money to help stablize impoverished countries so that those countries economies would start growing again. Gosh, institutions such as the IMF & the World bank would be pretty good for doing that wouldn't they? They could even help ease over liquidity crisis so as to prevent a countries financial markets from completely crashing.

Of course the said country would have to follow very basic guidelines such as not running any more deficits, since deficit spending is what caused the liquidity crisis to begin with, and increasing transparience (this fights corruption and increases the strength of the economy). If a country doesn't live up to the agreement then it doesn't get the loans it asked for. By and large most countries do live up to the generous terms but a few, like Argintina, had their loans cut off for failing to reign in their deficits. They wanted their cake and to eat it too.

Lastly, you are totally wrong about AIDS coming from the U.S.. Please type in "AIDS" into any search engine and you will come up with links like the one I listed which will tell you about the history of the AIDS virus.

[Master Zen]

Oerdin:

International Travel

The role of international travel in the spread of HIV was highlighted by the case of 'Patient Zero'. Patient Zero was a Canadian flight attendant called Gaetan Dugas who travelled extensively worldwide. Analysis of several of the early cases of AIDS showed that the infected individuals were either direct or indirect sexual contacts of the flight attendant. These cases could be traced to several different American cities demonstrating the role of international travel in spreading the virus. It also suggested that the disease was probably the consequence of a single transmissible agent.

That's from your article, and Patient Zero is the guy I mentioned in the previous post. This was in the early 80s if I recall. I do not doubt that AIDS originated in Africa, or that there may have been cases in many parts of the world before. But one thing is catching a disease, another completely different thing is an EPIDEMIC. The AIDS epidemic thus probably began in the gay community in the early 80s. In its latter stages, AIDS produces in most patients quite visible effects so I find it rather impossible to imagine the rest of the world not noticing a strange disease with an 100% kill rate (ok, maybe in Africa it was not noticed so much)

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That's an interesting conspiracy theory you have going there Zen Master. Let us suppose for a second that business doesn't want to impoverish their customers and that they'd actually like to see decent long term growth for the money they've invested in the third world. How could they do that? Hmmm, maybe by investing money to help stablize impoverished countries so that those countries economies would start growing again. Gosh, institutions such as the IMF & the World bank would be pretty good for doing that wouldn't they? They could even help ease over liquidity crisis so as to prevent a countries financial markets from completely crashing.

1) This is not the way the world works, and if you open your eyes a little you'd see it. Why do western firms end up moving their manufacturing line to the 3rd world? Cheap wages. What would happen if these countries developed and wages rose? They'd move their lines to poorer countries. These guys profit when there are dirt poor countries whose citizens will work for anything.

2) When a 3rd world country suffers a financial meltdown, foreign investors are pretty much able in most countries to withdraw their investments and place them elsewhere.

3) Now for the conspiracy theory: the West like any other dominant civilization before it is content with its position of power and will do ANYTHING to secure it. That involves controlling the intn'l financial institutions to this end. The West ultimately finds it unacceptable that the 3rd world might eventually challange its economic, scientific, and military supremacy. Consider that in the year 2050 the west will only have 10% of the world's population and you will understand why this threat is REAL, and it is therefore not in the interests of these countries to make the 3rd world prosper in all but a handful of cases.

Of course the said country would have to follow very basic guidelines such as not running any more deficits, since deficit spending is what caused the liquidity crisis to begin with, and increasing transparience (this fights corruption and increases the strength of the economy). If a country doesn't live up to the agreement then it doesn't get the loans it asked for. By and large most countries do live up to the generous terms but a few, like Argintina, had their loans cut off for failing to reign in their deficits. They wanted their cake and to eat it too.

And this just shows how the IMF only wants to secure access of foreign investment as the basic guideline of economic policy, a policy put forth ever since the famous "Washington Consensus" which almost ALL latinamerican countries followed and look at the disastrous results... Economics 101: deficits during crisis can actually be useful to revitalize the economy and lessen unemployment.

[Oerdin]

Most people who die of aids die of secondary infections. If you are living in Africa and one day a villager dies due to pneamonia was it AIDS or just lack of medical care and proper nutrion? Before the 1980's (heck to this day even) I doubt there were to many well financed research medical facilities in Africa so we really can't say I wide spread the infection was at any given time. We do know however that the infection is by far the largest in Africa and scientists have found a tissue sample from a villager who died in the Belgian Congo (Zaire) in the 1950's which has tested positive for AIDS.

Another way scientists tried to see when the virus made the jump from monkey's to people was by comparing how quickly the DNA of AIDS viruses have mutated over time. By comparing the DNA differences between samples taken between the 1970's and today and then averaging the speed of mutations (i.e. it has averaged X number of years for each mutation to occur) they calculated the cross over occured sometime in the late 1930s or early 1940s. Since the PIV (the version of HIV found in monkeys) is only found in Africa it is theorized the cross over most likely occured in Africa.

[Master Zen]

Consider that the birth rate in many AIDS-ridden African countries has dropped substantially. This would have been noticed had the "epidemic" started way before.

[alofatti]

qutoed from Master Zen
"
And this just shows how the IMF only wants to secure access of foreign investment as the basic guideline of economic policy, a policy put forth ever since the famous "Washington Consensus" which almost ALL latinamerican countries followed and look at the disastrous results... Economics 101: deficits during crisis can actually be useful to revitalize the economy and lessen unemployment.
"

How true. I am not an economist but I have also heard it a lots of times.
Latinoamerican countries are not allowed to use this recipe, under heavy punishment from the IMF. But the USA can use it freely...

Going back to water privatization, I´ve never heard a positive story about it. Even worse, in Bolivia was sooo bad (they even charged rain water!!!) that it induced a civilian revolt and the company has to be nationalized again.

I really hate the IMF and the Washington Consensus!!

[Master Zen]

I have yet to meed someone in Latin America who talks wonders of the IMF and the Washington Consensus other than turncoat economists (their "proud to be Latin" licenses should be revoked permanently) working in shiny cubicles at IMF HQ or DC think tanks.

alofatti:

take a look into the Spanish Civilization Site forum, there's a lot of economics talk going around lately...

[LoneWolf]

d

[Myrddin]

It would help if posters knew what they were talking about

World Bank (actually IBRD) lends Governements in developing countries money for development projects, usually infrastructure.

The Governments do not have to take the money, but if they do, they are responsible for:
making sure the project is carried out properly
repaying the money they have borrowed

If something goes wrong it is easy to blame the heartless World Bank but in practice the problems are:

the project doesn't make sense but is pushed through because the Governement wants it (new airport etc) (Government's fault)

the project made sense but because decision making is so slow, it doesn't work when it is carried out (shared blame)

the project makes sense but was implemented poorly because of corruption/ unforseen problems (shared blame but usually more of a Government problem)

the project works but the Government can't afford to repay because
it spent the money elsewhere (Governement's fault)
circumstances changed (happenstance)