World Crisis: Bankster Approved

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Bank are two of the biggest culprits of poverty in the world. Their sites suggest that they want to fight global poverty and stabilize the global economy. However, if one takes a closer look at countries who are battling poverty and ravaged by war, one will find that the IMF and World Bank are NOT helping these countries simply because they are delinquent in paying back the loans.

Zimbabwe: Over the past year, Zimbabwe has battled a 100,000% inflation rate, as of April 2008, as well as a cholera outbreak that killed 3,000 people. More over the European Union has frozen the assets of 203 people and 40 organizations, in an attempt to pressure the current president Mugabe to step down. Interestingly enough, no aid will be coming to Zimbabwe in the future. The EU and United Nations claim it's because Mugabe is President. However, Mugabe was supported by the several Western nations and the UN for about 10 years (1979-1990). The University of Michigan even gave Mugabe an honorary degree. But, since 1990, all of Mugabe's honors have been taken away, because of his "racist" policies against Whites in Zimbabwe.

Mugabe is a controversial figure. Zimbabwe used to be the bread basket of Africa. Western nations claim widespread famine in the country is a result of Mugabe. Mugabe asserts the droughts are caused by British chemical weapons. Mugabe does not support imperialism and has even had a policy of taking white-minority owned land and re-distributing it to the poor Zimbabweans. This move cited a lot of criticism from the IMF and World Bank. Not to mention, Zimbabwe is over-due in paying its 150.8 million dollar loan from the IMF. The World Bank has approved 1.6 BILLION for Zimbabwe, but because of "arrears", the country will see no money. So thousands of people must die, starve, and suffer all because of delinquency. Was the current situation in Zimbabwe caused by the IMF and World Bank? Many Zimbabweans believe this, in 1991 the World Bank pressured the country to cut spending in order to pay back the Bank. That meant social programs for the poor were cut, and had limited access to natural, technical and financial resources, due to the contraction of many public services for smallholder agriculture. In short, the poor suffer to pay back the rich.

Somalia: A country without a government since 1990, when the recognized, and United Nations approved, government was over thrown. In the 1980s, the IMF loaned Somalia 112 million, with interest the amount totals over $242 million, but the country is overdue, and cannot pay. Since 1990 Somalia has had several wars, within its country, and with Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti. Somalians assert such wars are to liberate ethnic Somalians in those respective countries, who want to be a part of Somalia. Of course, the United States, thru the CIA, funds warlords, such as Ethiopia, fighting the Islamic fighters who want to take over Somalia. Recently Ethiopian troops have withdrawn from Somalia, and the Islamic Courts have taken over, with NOT ONE CIVILIAN DEATH. Somalia is predominantly Muslim, and resistance to Islamic Court rule is only within the leaders the United States put in power.

I would love to see the Islamic Courts succeed, but with the country being 242 million in debt to the IMF, it looks like war will continue. Not to mention, according to the World Bank, Somalia is one of the poorest countries in the world, but only have a little over 500 million (as opposed to Zimbabwe's 1.6 BILLION), why doesn't the World Bank give more to this country, it asserts is the poorest? Not to mention, Somalia has one of the LOWEST HIV rates in Africa (0.5%), but the World Bank and the United Nations want to "address HIV/AIDS issues"--this makes no sense. Many assert because of the country's Islamic morals, HIV/AIDS is low, another good thing about the Islamic Courts taking over.

We shall see in the coming months how bad the situation will get in Somalia, because I guarantee you that the Islamic Court rule is not Bankster nor United Nations approved.

I thoroughly researched all countries that have a major conflict and their relation to their financial status within the IMF and World Bank, and only found Somalia and Zimbabwe were overdue, therefore had the most civil unrest and instability.

Now for the Bankster's perspective on the world economic crisis.

The IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, claims that more than just a stimulus needs to be done to fix the global economy. He asserts Restructuring the banking system would involve fully recognizing losses, segregating bad assets held by banks, preferably through a public institution that can take them over, and downsizing the sector "which means that it has in some way to shrink, that some part of it has to disappear." To do this would need strong public intervention.

What this translates to folks is taxpayer/citizen holding of BAD assets, which Strauss-Kahn admits is NOT profitable to citizens: The Managing Director said that Sweden provided a good example of how to tackle a banking crisis. In the 1990s, Sweden had set up a special public company to take over the toxic assets and remove them from the banking system. Later, after the system had recovered the assets were sold off and the company had ended up recovering some public money.

Read: SOME PUBLIC MONEY, NOT ALL. Not good, not good. Of course, this type of thinking is good for banks. They collect interest, which makes loans and restructuring profitable for banks. Bad assets are transferred out of the banks, to the public, and the PUBLIC, not the banks, loses money. Sucks if you're a tax-paying citizen.

Then the World Bank's take on things. Justin Lin, Senior VP and Chief Economist of the World Bank, wrote a looong paper on the subject. In short, he claims the world economic crisis is in fact the United States' fault. The housing market failed, and the rest of the world lost money--my problem with this is--no one was complaining when they were MAKING MONEY off the US housing market, but NOW, they lost money, and SOMETHING must be done to "share the burden" of all lost money. No, I don't think so, you play the Wall Street game, you take a chance of winning and losing, don't like it, don't play. Period.

Well, Lin from the World Bank, the US should begin regulating price inflation of assets. Meaning, the government should mandate how much profit an individual can make off an investment. This is absurd socialism.

Moreover, he argues that MORE regulation should be added to the financial sector--since we are a global world now, one mistake in America, affects EVERYONE--so we must inject more government supervision. Not just one government, but a coordinated effort on supervising the banks and investments. This means, the US could be governed by China, UK, and France regulations. I don't like this idea. We are American, we make our own rules, if you don't like it, don't invest in our country.

All banks are controlled by the World Bank, which works closely with the International Monetary Fund. In the US, we have been plagued with booms and busts due to our Federal Reserve, and because this is the way capitalism works. We, as capitalist Americans, cannot bow to the World Bank and IMF and "save the world" as the New York Times wants us to in their article. Nor can we bow to these banksters and allow them to dictate to us how much regulation we need, regulation that would be dictated by the WORLD. Keep in mind, THE WORLD, hate Americans, we caused everyone to lose money, therefore we must pay.

And we will. One way or the other. Remember Zimbabwe and Somalia? Yea, they got delinquent on their IMF payments, and now they are countries ravaged by war. If the US does NOT follow these recommendations, we too will be ravaged by war. Resistance is futile. It shall be interesting how the American public will react to global financial control.