• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

G-20 to give $1 trillion to IMF, World Bank

bhkad

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
10,742
Reaction score
1,753
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
G-20 to give $1 trillion to IMF, World Bank
Apr 2 10:29 AM US/Eastern
By JANE WARDELL
AP Business Writer

British Prime Minister Declares ‘The New World Order is Emerging’

LONDON (AP) - Prime Minister Gordon Brown says leaders at the G-20 summit have agreed to give $1 trillion to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to help struggling nations around the world.

Brown also says the 20 countries at the summit will enact common policies to crack down on tax havens, regulate hedge funds, and rebuild trust in the financial system to "prevent a crisis such as this from happening again."

He says the G-20 nations will also give emerging powers a greater say in the world economy.

Brown did not outline any new fiscal measures but says that the stimulus packages already announced by major nations have already been the biggest in history.

G-20 to give $1 trillion to IMF, World Bank

My question is whether this is instead of, or in addition to, the $845 Billion Obama would assess US taxpayers and send to the UN as part of (then) Sen. Obama's Global Poverty Bill.

Obama plan ships dollars overseas ? by the billions
 
Last edited:
And the spreading of the wealth... contiues.
 
Last edited:
And the spreading of the wealth... contiues.
You mean from each according to his means to each according to his needs?
Where have I heard that before?
 
You mean from each according to his means to each according to his needs?
Where have I heard that before?
I think a Democrat said that once, right?
 
And the spreading of the wealth... contiues.

Spreading the wealth is essential to help the poorest nations escape poverty. Once they've built their economy up to a certain point, they will no longer require outside economic aid.
 
Spreading the wealth is essential to help the poorest nations escape poverty.
How and when did the people of impovrished nations acquire a right to the wealth of the American people -- specifically, mine?
 
Spreading the wealth is essential to help the poorest nations escape poverty. Once they've built their economy up to a certain point, they will no longer require outside economic aid.

That's certainly the theory. But it doesn't always happen that way, does it? In fact, it may seldom happen that way. Notable exceptions being post WWII Germany and Japan.
 
How and when did the people of impovrished nations acquire a right to the wealth of the American people -- specifically, mine?

I don't do moralistic arguments. I do economic arguments. If you want to discuss the economics of this, I'd be happy to oblige. There's really nothing to discuss in regards to the morality of this, as my values are obviously different from yours.
 
I don't do moralistic arguments. I do economic arguments.
So, you can't tell me when and how they got that right.
Given that, you'll understand and accept my absolute opposition.
 
Spreading the wealth is essential to help the poorest nations escape poverty. Once they've built their economy up to a certain point, they will no longer require outside economic aid.
And how well has that worked out so far?
 
That's certainly the theory. But it doesn't always happen that way, does it? In fact, it may seldom happen that way. Notable exceptions being post WWII Germany and Japan.

Very few countries have developed entirely on their own without any foreign assistance. About the only ones I can think of are the United States and the United Kingdom (and it's debatable as to the extent even those two developed on their own).

There's really no way for poor sub-Saharan African countries to escape the poverty trap without outside assistance. As long as malaria, influenza, tuberculosis, and HIV continue to ravage their countries, they will not have a marketable work force. As long as they continue degrading their environment and practicing unsustainable development, they will not have a marketable agriculture sector. As long as they continue to overpopulate their already overpopulated countries, they will not be able to provide for themselves. As long as they don't have functional education at the most basic level, their work force will have no skills.

Foreign assistance can go a long way to preventing many of these problems for very little money.
 
Last edited:
And how well has that worked out so far?

It's worked quite well in most places where foreign aid has actually been committed. The problem with Africa isn't that foreign assistance hasn't worked, it's that developed nations have been much more stingy with their foreign aid money to Africa than they were to most Asian countries.
 
Spreading the wealth is essential to help the poorest nations escape poverty. Once they've built their economy up to a certain point, they will no longer require outside economic aid.

Go spread your own wealth, hypocrite.
 
There's really no way for poor sub-Saharan African countries to escape the poverty trap without outside assistance. As long as malaria, influenza, tuberculosis, and HIV continue to ravage their countries, they will not have a marketable work force. As long as they continue degrading their environment and practicing unsustainable development, they will not have a marketable agriculture sector. As long as they continue to overpopulate their already overpopulated countries, they will not be able to provide for themselves. As long as they don't have function education at the most basic level, their work force will have no skills.
So we need to help them end influenza, tuberculosis, and HIV, and then help them not overpopulate.......

Given these parameters, wouldn't doing nothing be the most efficient means to that end?
 
So we need to help them end influenza, tuberculosis, and HIV, and then help them not overpopulate.......

Given these parameters, wouldn't doing nothing be the most efficient means to that end?

That is essentially what we have been doing for the past several decades, yet their populations continue to grow and easily preventable diseases continue to spread.
 
Very few countries have developed entirely on their own without any foreign assistance. About the only ones I can think of are the United States and the United Kingdom (and it's debatable as to the extent even those two developed on their own).

There's really no way for poor sub-Saharan African countries to escape the poverty trap without outside assistance. As long as malaria, influenza, tuberculosis, and HIV continue to ravage their countries, they will not have a marketable work force. As long as they continue degrading their environment and practicing unsustainable development, they will not have a marketable agriculture sector. As long as they continue to overpopulate their already overpopulated countries, they will not be able to provide for themselves. As long as they don't have function education at the most basic level, their work force will have no skills.

Foreign assistance can go a long way to preventing many of these problems for very little money.

This is all speculation. We need vastly wiser Civilized World(TM) to come in and build their nations for them, right?
 
This is all speculation. We need vastly wiser Civilized World(TM) to come in and build their nations for them, right?
Nah...just need white folk to go teach the black folk how to live...haven't you been paying attention?

The idea that stepping away from the foreign aid fiasco, letting the kleptocracies collapse, and allowing people to build up indigenous societies and governments in accordance with their values and ideas, of course, is just so five minutes ago......
 
Nah...just need white folk to go teach the black folk how to live...haven't you been paying attention?

The idea that stepping away from the foreign aid fiasco, letting the kleptocracies collapse, and allowing people to build up indigenous societies and governments in accordance with their values and ideas, of course, is just so five minutes ago......

No, we can't do that. We would not be paying homage to our new universal value - "Stability."

Here's a great charity for anybody who really cares about Africa.

Home | Books For Africa

How is this money going to be divided anyway? Is it going to be even among the G-20 members or is the overwhelming brunt of the burden going to be born by the United States as usual?
 
Last edited:
So, you can't tell me when and how they got that right.
Given that, you'll understand and accept my absolute opposition.
There's nothing to argue either way. They neither have that right, nor will the economic theory work.
 
How is this money going to be divided anyway? Is it going to be even among the G-20 members or is the overwhelming brunt of the burden going to be born by the United States as usual?
Well, don't we have the biggest printing presses?

Since it's all funny money now anyway, why not at least get the PR points of printing the most and pretending to be the most generous?
 
How and when did the people of impovrished nations acquire a right to the wealth of the American people -- specifically, mine?

Overall wealth is not a zero sum game.
 
How can anyone say with a straight face, that a "new world order" was NOW created:confused: If anything, they just let China in;)
 
Back
Top Bottom