The IMF and World Bank: Partners in Economic Backwardness – Global Research


06-07-19 05:58:00,


Michael Hudson discusses his seminal work of 1972, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire, a critique of how the US exploits foreign economies through IMF and World bank debt; difference between the IMF and World Bank; World Bank dysfunctional from the outset; loans made in foreign currency only; policy to provide loans for countries to devote their land to export plantation crops; US food and monetary imperialism; U.S. agricultural protectionism built into the postwar global system; promotion of dependency on the US as food supplier; food blackmail; perpetration of world poverty preferred; no encouragement of land reform; privatization of the public domain; America aided, not foreign economies; exploitation of mineral deposits; bribery; foreign nations politically controlled at the top; veto power for US only.

Full transcript below.

Bonnie Faulkner:  Michael Hudson, welcome back.

Michael Hudson:  It’s good to be back, Bonnie.

Bonnie Faulkner:  In your seminal work form 1972, Super Imperialism:  The Economic Strategy of American Empire, you write that, “The development lending of the World Bank has been dysfunctional from the outset.”  When was the World Bank set up and by whom?

Michael Hudson:  It was set up basically by the United States in 1944, along with its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, and the purpose was ostensibly to create an international order, but an international order that was more like a funnel, that would make other countries dependent on the United States. The United States wanted to be sure that no other country or group of countries, even if all the rest of the world ganged up on the United States, the United States wanted the ability to veto any action by the World Bank or any action by the International Monetary Fund by having veto power in it so that it could make sure that any policy was, in Donald Trump’s words, “We’ve got to win and they’ve got to lose.”

The World Bank from the outset was set up essentially as a branch of the military, of the Defense Department. John J. McCloy, who’d negotiated the end of World War II, was the first full-time president—he later became head of Chase Manhattan Bank—and McNamara, another Defense Department person, was in charge of it,

 » Lees verder

Soros Partners With Mastercard To Hand Out Money To Migrants


04-11-18 09:46:00,

Young as they are, Clinton Snowflakes have the most to lose from a nuclear holocaust. Basically, everything. The life that they’ve been planning. Everything! Like sheep to the slaughter, millions will vote for the Obama-Clinton War Party.

Even Bernie Sanders is in the November 2018 mix, seeking a third Senate term on

the same good ol’ War Party ticket.

Like Clinton, Sanders is a seasoned interventionist. Writer Jeffrey St. Clair makes

the point that both Clinton and Sanders are in the business of advancing “hawkish

policies under the ragged banner of ‘humanitarianism.’”

St. Clair adds, “Sanders supported Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia, voted for the 2001

Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty

much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted, backed Obama’s Libyan

debacle and he supported an expanded US role in the Syrian Civil War.” There’s


The perception of Sanders as a hunched, peacenik professor is effective in

garnering support from liberals with a limp. That is, he strikes a chord in those

with low grades in history and geography yet who are high on voting from the

heart – one sculpted by CNN and MSNBC. As incomprehensible as it might be to

a conscientious Snowflake, the policies of Sanders, like those of Obama and

Clinton, make him a murderer. Indeed, murder, he wrote. His vote helped tighten

the noose that snapped the neck of Saddam Hussein, separating his body from his


Dear Snowflakes, Sanders is also on record for voting twice in favor of resolutions

for regime change in Iraq.

The War Party justification for the dastardly execution of Iraq’s national leader,

following the cruise missile invasion and rape of the country, remains unrepentant

– it was a humanitarian act, implemented for the good of Iraqi citizens and for all


Might hindsight offer a different perspective?

More than one million died, including up to 500,000 Iraqi children.

 » Lees verder