Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Trickle down economics and the airlines

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
more on the IMF.....


  • OCTOBER 23, 2008
IMF Regains Some Global Clout

Once-Scorned Lender Fashions Rescue Packages for Those With No Alternatives

By BOB DAVIS


WASHINGTON -- After years on the outs with developing nations, the International Monetary Fund is again starting to play a big role in crisis management.
Over the past few days, the IMF has begun to step in with rescue packages for Ukraine, Iceland, Hungary and Pakistan.
View Full Image



Landov Members of various delegations listen as World Bank President Robert Zoelick speaks during the International Monetary Fund and World Bank 2008 Annual Boards of Governors Meeting in Washington on Oct. 13.

BTN_insetClose.gif





Getting to that point hasn't been easy. During the global boom after 2002, governments in Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia and Russia scored big points domestically by paying off IMF debts, sometimes early, and swearing off IMF loans. Many of them fattened their reserves to insulate themselves somewhat from global capital flows, but also to ensure that they wouldn't have to turn to the IMF again in time of crisis.
Brazil was typical. When it paid off the IMF early in 2005, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva went on national television to exult that "we can safely say that Brazil can walk with its own legs."
Now, the global economic downturn has brought developing nations back to the IMF's offices in Washington -- largely because they have no alternative.
The turnaround comes at an uncomfortable moment for the IMF as Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the fund, is trying to survive a scandal stemming from an affair he had with a female subordinate. A law firm retained by the IMF is investigating whether he abused his power in connection with the relationship and is expected to report its findings over the next few days.
Mr. Strauss-Kahn on Wednesday said he would sue anyone passing malicious rumors about him. "I have been instructed by Mr. Strauss-Kahn to sue for libel anyone peddling rumors about my client," said Mr. Strauss-Kahn's French lawyer, Jean Veil. He said the warning was aimed at the French, not at IMF staffers who might have information about Mr. Strauss-Kahn.
Since the 1980s, the IMF has played a major role in Latin America, bailing out Argentina, Brazil and Mexico when they were on the brink of bankruptcy. The apex of its power was the 1997-98 Asia financial crisis, when Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, Russia and Brazil turned to the IMF, with a strong assist by the U.S. Treasury, for rescue packages of tens of billions of dollars each.


While those nations eventually started growing rapidly again, the IMF's tough requirements for loans -- slash budgets, privatize industries, open markets -- produced a global wave of resentment. IMF lending dropped to about $2 billion last year, down from about $32 billion in 1998, at current exchange rates.
For the past year or so, the IMF had forecast that countries in central and eastern Europe were likely to run into trouble because they had wide trade deficits and were deeply indebted.
Now those countries are stumbling badly, and the lending so far in 2008 has bounced up to $5 billion. Over the past year or so, for instance, Pakistan's economy crumbled because of sagging foreign investment due to terrorist attacks, big budget deficits and diminished exports. They scrambled for relief from China and the U.S. When that didn't come through, top officials turned to an IMF loan as a "Plan B."
Mr. Strauss-Kahn said that an IMF mission will begin discussions with Pakistani authorities in the next few days "on a program aimed at strengthening economic stability and enhancing confidence in the financial system."
Within the IMF, senior officials are sketching out plans to make the IMF a power again in global financial issues by making it a center of analysis and recommendations for new financial arrangements. Britain and other European countries are pushing for a more-central role for the IMF, against the wishes of the U.S.
In the past, the U.S. has been able to sideline European efforts to boost the IMF's role, but the financial crisis, which started in America, may have weakened Washington's hand.
—David Gauthier-Villars in Paris contributed to this article.
 
Rez,
I can't stand Paul Bremer. He was a complete failure and was one of Bush's biggest mistakes. He had ZERO experience in Middle Eastern culture and affairs. He had ZERO experience or talents in forming a post war government.


He wasn't there to form a post war gov't. He was to create a privatized capitalistic economy.



The History Channel had a great documentary on how badly he screwed things up. Aside of that, I think your assumptions on the two above cases are wrong.

They are not my assumptions. There are documented in The Shock Doctrine.


First, the infrastructure in Iraq was in shambles and maybe a flat tax was a acceptable way to start bringing in some income for the formation of the Iraqi government.

With 50% of Iraqi's unemployed/in poverty.... how would taxing them help?


Taxes are how governments are funded. Order #39 in my opinion was a good deal for the country. The CPA was charged with bringing foreign investment into the country and providing jobs. It would have been a huge risk fo companies to invest in Iraq at the time.


I disagree. Companies were eager to get into Iraq. It was the Wild Wild West of capitalism. The slate wiped clean and new laws via Bremer that favored corporations.

The reconstruction companies like Halliburton and Bechtel didn't hire locals. They used foreign labor. Unemployed angry Iraqi's turned to radical fanatics and fought the US occupation.

What if the contractors were required to hire locals. The same game plan occur ed in New Orleans. Locals sitting in refugee camps as out of state workers "rebuilt" New Orleans.



The best way to get that investment in was to offer the tax break on profits.

How does one tax 100% profits that left the country?


People are still employed and the country moves forward. Get the companies in and get them working towards employing the largely unemployed population.

As I stated before the CPA didn't require contractors to hire Iraqis. In addition, there was the case of soviet style concrete plants that worked but not as efficient as the west. But in time the contractors could not get their own concrete production working so they went back to the local concrete plants.

Same with other State factories. The goal was to privatize them and lay off Iraqi workers. The Iraqis were so angry they were ready to destroy the factories. Why? The jobs were all they had. If they couldn't have it, then no one would...


Work on taxing the profits later. It seemed to me to be a good deal for Iraq. What is your problem with it?

If it is/was such a good deal... then why didn't it work....??

The entire Iraq War was nothing but a scam to inject a radical freemarket into the middle east. It failed there and radical free markets have failed here in the US.

The goal of the CPA was to leech or be a virus off of the Iraqi people for pure corporate profits. Just like corporations function here in the US.



Your thoughts?
 
Obama won?!?!?!??! I did not know that!

IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll: Day Eleven

Posted: Thursday, October 23, 2008
McCain has cut into Obama's lead for a second day and is now just 1.1 points behind. The spread was 3.7 Wednesday and 6.0 Tuesday. The Republican is making headway with middle- and working- class voters, and has surged 10 points in two days among those earning between $30,000 and $75,000. He has also gone from an 11-point deficit to a 9-point lead among Catholics.
View Results From Prior Days
About IBD/TIPP: An analysis of Final Certified Results for the 2004 election showed IBD's polling partner, TIPP, was the most accurate pollster of the campaign season. Learn more at www.TIPPonline.com.


Polls often vary, and while the 2004 results show this was the most accurate poll then, it may not be now. As the common disclaimer goes - past results are no guarantee of future performance. Simply put, the most accurate poll will not be known until election results are in.

The latest numbers available show the following:

CBS/NY Times - Obama by 13%
Gallup (Traditional) - Obama by 4%
Gallup (Expanded) - Obama by 6%
Rasmussen Reports - Obama by 7%
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby - Obama by 12%
Hotline/FD - Obama by 5%
Fox News - Obama by 9%
ABC/Washington Post - Obama by 11%
IBD/TIPP - Obama by 1%
GWU/Battleground - Obama by 4%
NBC/Wall Street Journal - Obama by 10%
Associated Press/GfK - Obama Obama by 1%
Ipsos/McClatchy - Obama by 8%
CNN/Opinion Research - Obama by 5%
Pew Research - Obama by 14%

Average Obama lead 7.5%

Interestingly traditionally conservative FOX shows Obama with a bigger lead than traditionally liberal CNN.

In the key battleground states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania the polls show the following averages:

Ohio - Obama by 6%
Pennsylvania - Obama by 10.5%
Florida - Obama by 2%

As we learned from 2000, you can win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, so a "national" poll doesn't mean too much, it is the state by state polls that one should pay attention to. And looking at it this way, the very safe money is on Obama to win. By most counts, Obama just has to hold on to just one of those three battleground states and he'll seal up the electoral vote.
 
Does not matter who the president is,if you cannot afford the service then you will not patronize the business.
 
Polls often vary, and while the 2004 results show this was the most accurate poll then, it may not be now. As the common disclaimer goes - past results are no guarantee of future performance. Simply put, the most accurate poll will not be known until election results are in.

The latest numbers available show the following:

CBS/NY Times - Obama by 13%
Gallup (Traditional) - Obama by 4%
Gallup (Expanded) - Obama by 6%
Rasmussen Reports - Obama by 7%
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby - Obama by 12%
Hotline/FD - Obama by 5%
Fox News - Obama by 9%
ABC/Washington Post - Obama by 11%
IBD/TIPP - Obama by 1%
GWU/Battleground - Obama by 4%
NBC/Wall Street Journal - Obama by 10%
Associated Press/GfK - Obama Obama by 1%
Ipsos/McClatchy - Obama by 8%
CNN/Opinion Research - Obama by 5%
Pew Research - Obama by 14%

Average Obama lead 7.5%

Interestingly traditionally conservative FOX shows Obama with a bigger lead than traditionally liberal CNN.

In the key battleground states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania the polls show the following averages:

Ohio - Obama by 6%
Pennsylvania - Obama by 10.5%
Florida - Obama by 2%

As we learned from 2000, you can win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, so a "national" poll doesn't mean too much, it is the state by state polls that one should pay attention to. And looking at it this way, the very safe money is on Obama to win. By most counts, Obama just has to hold on to just one of those three battleground states and he'll seal up the electoral vote.

Game, Set, Match

Look for an Obama win Nov. 4th by landslide.
 
Obama's tax plan is not wealth redistribution. Its simply a restoration of taxes back to the Clinton years.

That's funny, he calls it 'spreading the wealth around.' I guess you know what he means better than he does. But you should be against going back to those policies. Tax revenues are (or were) at an all time high as a percentage of GDP. For the years 2004-2007, total tax revenues were at 18.8% of GDP. 0.4% higher than the average of the 1990's. Individual tax returns were at 8.4% of GDP, another 0.4% higher than the average of the 1990s. So, I guess I should be for Obama, his policies will bring those numbers back down...hmmm, maybe I am a Democrat! Less money to spend! Join me and we'll vote Obama in!!!

Figures from Office of Management and Budget, "Budget of the United States Government: 2007 Historical Tables," Table 2.3
 
Game, Set, Match

Look for an Obama win Nov. 4th by landslide.


I kind of hope he loses just to see the left come unglued again. Oh the humanity. The left won't be able to claim voter fraud or miscounts this time. I'm starting to think that the undecideds are going to go with the safe choice, McCain. All this talk of super majority makes things lean a little too far to the left. Perhaps that hurts him in the final weeks.

I think the best part of all this is that Obama is spending 2-3 times what McCain is, McCain is running a terrible campaign, and Obama is barely leading. I've already bought the stickers for both sides, I've always liked putting the loser's stickers in my little storage locker/time capsule. This time, I'm putting both in there.
 
I kind of hope he loses just to see the left come unglued again.

The losing side always comes "unglued".

Do you remember the "end of the world" pronouncements made by Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans after Clinton won in 1992? I sure do, I was a rabid dittohead back then.
 
I think the best part of all this is that Obama is spending 2-3 times what McCain is, McCain is running a terrible campaign, and Obama is barely leading. I've already bought the stickers for both sides, I've always liked putting the loser's stickers in my little storage locker/time capsule. This time, I'm putting both in there.
An 8 point spread nationally is HUGE! Reagan won by 9 points and that equated to a 350+ electoral victory.

Projections for Obama have him at 375+ on election night. It won't be 2000 and 2004, this thing will be over by the Mississippi River.

Of course, this is all projecting. But when you say "barely leading" might want to do some research about what a big lead is.
 
Trickle down economics, oh yeah the good ole' steal from the middle class and give to the rich. The last thirty years of all out war on the middle class has caused a disparity beween the middle class and the wealthy we haven't seen since just before the great depression.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top