Umm, what? I was using your post as a springboard to describing the proper use of the IMF and other international lenders, ie they are not charities. It was neither aimed at you, nor did it invent any context.
Debts of nations
- Thread starter NKVD
- Start date
Umm, what? I was using your post as a springboard to describing the proper use of the IMF and other international lenders, ie they are not charities. It was neither aimed at you, nor did it invent any context.
Historically, threats of violence were used to force nations to pay their debts. On more than a few occasions, Latin American countries, realizing most of their investors were foreigners and thus they wouldn't hurt their own people if they tried to default on their debt, did exactly that. The British and United States sent fleets down to blockade ports and cause havoc unless they paid their bills.
That's one of the reasons why there is a little ill will between the United States and the countries south of her border.
That's one of the reasons why there is a little ill will between the United States and the countries south of her border.
That's what Cipriano Castro's mom said.
Don't forget the French, Spanish, and Germans...
Yes, you're right. I recalled that later but didn't go back and edit.
NKVD
Cossack
until last year all our surplus were coming from Alberta and that because of the high price of the barrel of petroleum. now it dropped, taxes and all we'll be like 40 billions in red.
Alberta has paid is debt though
Yeah, they defaulted on just about everybody. I wonder if the Dutch had any problems--they are about the last major power with a fleet that could have blockaded a country (Portugal's navy, by the time the 19th century rolled around, was a joke).
Dunno about the Dutch, but the Portuguese were actually one of those countries that almost defaulted on its loans in the late 19th century - the main reason they didn't was because the British didn't want the Germans to use it as an excuse to carve up the Portuguese colonial empire (naturally, so the British could continue using it practically as an adjunct of their own empire).
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
The problem currently liew with the Inernational Monetary Fund and the Worl Bank for Development and Reconstuction (the Dev. and recon. bits might be in the wrong order).
When they were set up at Bretton Woods they were set up under the good Keynesian principles of ensuring a country's currency remains stable (the IMF) and the idea that a country in need of money to be able to develop it's natural resources, or provide a decent level of service e.g. in education, has a place to come fo cheap money. Neither institution was supposed to be interfering in the internal political or economic policies of a country (aside form giving money to a country)
Currently these two institutions are heavily involved in the G8/G20 imposition of the Washington Consensus around the world. The Washington Consensus stipulates the removal of all money and investment regulation from a country's laws (the cause of the Asiaqn crash in 1997 btw), the privatisation of a state owned corporations (even when it is disadvantagous to do so), the decimation of any social welfare system and the constistent downgrading and impoverisment of the civil service, even such imptortant positions as educators and health workers, with the immediate outsourcing of any remaining government functions to corportate entities.
When they were set up at Bretton Woods they were set up under the good Keynesian principles of ensuring a country's currency remains stable (the IMF) and the idea that a country in need of money to be able to develop it's natural resources, or provide a decent level of service e.g. in education, has a place to come fo cheap money. Neither institution was supposed to be interfering in the internal political or economic policies of a country (aside form giving money to a country)
Currently these two institutions are heavily involved in the G8/G20 imposition of the Washington Consensus around the world. The Washington Consensus stipulates the removal of all money and investment regulation from a country's laws (the cause of the Asiaqn crash in 1997 btw), the privatisation of a state owned corporations (even when it is disadvantagous to do so), the decimation of any social welfare system and the constistent downgrading and impoverisment of the civil service, even such imptortant positions as educators and health workers, with the immediate outsourcing of any remaining government functions to corportate entities.
The purpose of the IMF is to ensure stability in the international market and economy, so yes, that means interfering with the internal policies of countries that threaten that stability. And who else will turn to the IMF for money? But, of course, they don't force anyone to take their recommendations. You only have to listen if you take their money, which once again, is not charity, and was never meant to be charity. You can ignore the Washington Consensus all you want, if you can raise money yourself. Corporations are also more than willing to invest if they can be sure that their property won't be expropriated.
Your biased description of the Washington Consensus does not exactly give you much credibility. And really, blaming the Asian Financial Crisis on it? There is a lot to be said on the IMF's botched handling of the affair, but the initial spark that set off the whole thing was prolonged export driven growth with undervalued currencies pegged to the dollar, both squarely against the Washington Consensus.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
I'm not sure now and don't have my books on 19th century portuguese diplomacy oat hand, but I believe that ultimately it was the french who took over the loans, to prevented their german enemies from getting more colonies in Africa. Not that the british wanted to see that either, but when they wanted pieces of land they tended to be more direct.
Not sure about whether the Portuguese had any French help with paying back the Anglo-German loan that figured in the treaty of 30 August 1898, but the reason the Germans didn't get any of the Portuguese empire was because the British signed a treaty in October 1899 reaffirming the British commitment to the integrity of the Portuguese colonial territories (provided Maputo/Lourenço Marques was closed to shipments of war material to the Boers) - basically jettisoning the German agreement.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
The secret part of the anglo-german treaty of 30 August 1898 did partition Mozambique between Germany (north of the Zambeze) and the UK (the rest), and Angola (north down to Luanda for the UK, the southern part to Germany. And East Timor for Germany. Germany remained for several years during the 1890s with one eye on the possibility of bringing the UK into its system of alliances, and this collaboration may have been part of those attempts, collaborating with the UK, not just a grab at new colonies and an attempt to guarantee british acquiescence.
However, I doubt that Balfour wanted to carry on the terms of the treaty - he was too ready to dump it in 1899 (the Windsor Treaty which you mentioned). Salisbury, the PM, openly came out against it, so it looks more like an attempt at framing Germany as a country with dangerous colonial ambitions. Of course, the 1899 treaty did not prevent Germany and the UK from renegotiating the 1898 treaty again in 1913...
French banks were during the late 19th century the most important lenders to Portugal. The railroads and ports were financed with french capital, and the difficulties in paying those loans were the main cause of diplomatic problems between the two countries. There were also commercial conflicts since 1890, when frech wine production recovered and a new 200% tariff was introduced on the Port wine imports. The loan which the portuguese government sought in 1898 was meant to pay mostly to those french creditors. France naturally opposed german ambitions anywhere, so the granted more flexible terms on their outstanding loans and the germans didn't manage to offer the new loan. Again, news of the treaty between germany and the UK might have helped here. So the british, with the 1898 treaty, managed to worsen franco-german relations, get the french to foot the bill for the better terms the protuguese government sought for its loans, and reaffirm (1899) its alliance with Portugal and its influence over the portuguese colonies. Not bad! I don't know if it was intentional, but if so von Bülow never saw it coming - he was no Bismark.
Similar threads
