MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
IMF pounds at emerging and developed countries, but forgets self-criticism
The IMF criticized developing countries for not responding strongly enough to the surge of hot money into their markets, saying the result could be a hard economic landing. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“The IMF said emerging market economies have tried to slow the flows through a combination of macroeconomic policies as well as capital control measures, but are delaying further macroeconomic responses such as raising interest rates.”
Apr 19th, 2011 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps because raising interest rates nullifies the effect of capital controls by attracting more speculative capital, which may develop into asset bubbles. The IMF is giving counterproductive advices. Just some days ago, with the support of developed countries, it tried to establish regulations for the adoption of capital controls. It is getting rather clear that the IMF has no committment to financial stability in emerging markets.
IMF is a modern pirate organization with crooks in business armani suits.
Apr 19th, 2011 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0IMF, ICJ, watch out for anything that starts with the letter “I”.
Apr 19th, 2011 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who founded these agencies? And to what end? To who's benefit?
“Who founded these agencies? And to what end? To who's benefit?”
Apr 19th, 2011 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Answer:
Through B.I.S. it controls the Private Federal Reserve (strong arm of the IMF, World Bank, Largest contributer to the UN=ICJ) and let's not forget it's share holders, same banksters who know how to rape nations (JP morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, etc etc, famous banking cartel from Europe), from it's assets.
similar is happening now in Europe and in the US, but strange that still many people haven't figured that out yet. Sad, that always happens when it's to late.
What a mess, and then they wonder why Argentina and Chile told the ICJ to f@ck off.
Apr 20th, 2011 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“In 1947, and following increasing tension between both countries, Great Britain proposed that the dispute concerning the then so-called ”Falkland Islands Dependencies“ be submitted to judicial settlement by the International Court ofJustice, but the Argentine Government turned down the proposal. The proposal was reiterated after 1947 with the same result until eventually, on May 4, 1955, Great Britain submitted a unilateral application instituting proceedings before the Court against Argentina and Chile. However, since neither of the defendant states were subject to compulsory jurisdiction the application was
finally rejected.” http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1518&context=iclr&sei-redir=1#search=%22malvinas+decolonization%22
The ICJ would have ruled in favor of the UK no matter what crazy bullshit the UK came up with.
@5 Left a bit out?
Apr 20th, 2011 - 06:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Often negotiated, the issue went to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1971 which ruled for Chile on May 2 1977. Argentina disputed the decision and sought bilateral negotiations. In July each side protested territorial buoys placed by the other. Argentina repeatedly
violated Chilean air and maritime space. Bilateral negotiations failed. On 25 January 1978 Argentina declared the award “fundamentally null.”
http://web.mit.edu/cascon/cases/case_car.html
You're talking about the Beagle Channel, not Antarctica.
Apr 20th, 2011 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK was after Antarctica, why else would the UK serve both Argentina and Chile with a court order?
A completely different issue.
What is your point?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!