PROBLEM
In 1984 due to drought conditions on the Horn Of Africa crops in Ethiopia failed . Famine on a huge scale threatened to engulf the country .
SOLUTION
Ethiopia decides to use its cash reserves on importing food thereby staving off famine .
PROBLEM
The IMF orders Ethiopia to put priority on servicing its overseas debt rather than famine relief .
RESULT
Catastrophic famine engulfs this unfortunate nation leaving some 1 million human beings dead .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ethiopia2000/article/0,2763,194428,00.html

well its obvious that the IMF doesnt like ethiopia, nor does it like the thought of putting money towards something outragiously useful.

humans better awaken to true cooperation and honesty soon

or else .... well lets not go there quite just yet.

That is not surprising. Similar thing happens in my own country. We simply cannot grow economically because we have to give money to the IMF. And in the end, we are the ones held responsible for not having enough economic growth. Soooo hipocritical... :rolleyes: :bugeye:

It's funny the fact that the US doesn't pay to the IMF, eventough it has trillions of dollars in debt, more than my own country. I guess that is because the US owns the IMF. Makes me wonder where all the money goes... :rolleyes:

Cites?

Why do you borrow from it if you feel the repayment terms are the equivalent of usury. I am not necessarily in disagreement with your position, but according to the IMF's financial statements (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/quart/2004fy/013104.pdf), the five largest users of credit are Brazil, Turkey, Argentina, Indonesia and the Russian Federation.

Cites?
What? Why do you say cities? I don't understand...



Why do you borrow from it if you feel the repayment terms are the equivalent of usury.
Who, I? Maybe the government does. Besides, I don't think we do. We are simply paying money that we have borrowed a long time ago. And the fact that the US doesn't pay is kinda... interesting... :rolleyes:



I am not necessarily in disagreement with your position, but according to the IMF's financial statements (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/quart/2004fy/013104.pdf), the five largest users of credit are Brazil, Turkey, Argentina, Indonesia and the Russian Federation.
I looked at the site, and it seems that Canada uses more credit then Brazil... :eek: And their are many others above Brazil...

I don't know if I misunderstood... but check page 28... :/

Cites.. you know support for your assertations. ;)

If your government borrowed it, then you borrowed it.
As far as the top credit users, it is stated on page 8.

:m: Peace.

From the Global Treasury Newsletter on May 25th - it is online (http://www.gtnews.com) but requires registration:

Brazil has studiously applied the IMF's economic policies. The result has been weak economic growth, deteriorating social conditions and rapidly increasing public sector debt. Annual average gross domestic product growth in Brazil was 1.6 percent between 1999 and 2003. Over the same period, unemployment more than doubled to 13 percent and cumulative real average earnings contracted by over 13 percent. The outlook for economic growth is discouraging. Gross domestic product growth is not expected to exceed 1.5 percent this year. This weak economic performance and tragic deterioration in social conditions are a direct result of the IMF's demand that Brazil keep fiscal and monetary policies tight in return for continued access to multilateral credit.

The primary purpose behind Brazil's tight monetary and fiscal policies has been to ensure that the country's fiscal position is sustainable. The key indicator of fiscal sustainability is, at the minimum; stabilization of the public sector debt stock. In Brazil, the debt stock has not stabilized, rather the ratio of public sector debt to GDP has increased from 68 percent in 1999 to over 90 percent in 2003. By 2005 the ratio of public sector debt to GDP will easily exceed 100 percent. The IMF policies that are meant to contain and eventually reduce Brazil's public sector debt are the primary factors contributing to its growth. The IMF's policies are undermining Brazil's political, social and economic stability in exactly the manner that they undermined stability in Argentina, prompting the country's default.

The only factor that has, so far, prevented a default in Brazil is the generous availability of IMF credit. Brazil is the IMF's largest debtor, accounting for over 30 percent of total IMF loans outstanding. Turkey and Argentina are the second and third largest IMF debtors. Combined, these three countries account for over 70 percent of total IMF credit outstanding. In Argentina, political and social instability made continued implementation of the IMF's economic policies impossible. This led to the suspension of IMF credit, which triggered Argentina's default. Exactly the same scenario is developing in Brazil and is gaining fuel from Argentina's success in stabilizing its political, social and economic structures despite its effective debt repudiation and the accompanying reversal of foreign private credit inflows.

Is that an excuse to screw everyone up and kill 1 million human beings... :rolleyes:

The article supports your statements and mine as well, so I truly have no idea what you are talking about. Where do you come up with a figure of 1 million? The last time that number of people died was due to a drought in 1984. What does it have to do with your comments regarding Brazil?

Perhaps I should roll my eyes at you, as you are reverting to the style of discussion you brought with you when first came to SciForums. Was your apparent improvement merely a fluke?

:m: Peace.

The article supports your statements and mine as well, so I truly have no idea what you are talking about. Where do you come up with a figure of 1 million? The last time that number of people died was due to a drought in 1984.
Read first post...


What does it have to do with your comments regarding Brazil?Similar situation...



Perhaps I should roll my eyes at you, as you are reverting to the style of discussion you brought with you when first came to SciForums. Was your apparent improvement merely a fluke?
Why are you saying that?