Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter O'Brien who wrote (540389)	2/14/2004 5:58:05 PM
From: JBTFD	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

So I guess the solution was not deregulation or privatization. It was prudent currency policy. My take on the IMF and World Bank: I’ve noticed a predatory practice in real estate in my town. It is a “lease to own” scam: landlords rent a home to a person with an extra amount going to an option to buy the home at a future time for a certain price. Looks fine on the surface, but it is dishonest in that the landlord usually picks people who has knows will not be able to get a loan at the time the option would be exercised. So in essence he is getting the few hundred extra a month option money for nothing. This is similar to what I feel the IMF and World Bank do. They set the repayment terms of loans such that there is a likelihood of default, and at the same time force the country to sign over it's natural resources as collateral for the loan. When the country defaults, the lenders acquire the assets. They also force the country to do all kinds of things in order to get the loan. (called structural adjustment programs) The bottom line IMO is that the whole thing is rigged from the beginning. The real intent of the IMF is to get control of the resources, in the same way that the real intent of the landlord is to get increased rental payments.