Саммит G8

[Линда]

Накаляется обстановка. Саммит проходит почти в осадном положении Глобалисты всего мира становятся все яростнее и активней. Скоро надо будет с этим считаться.
Вот интересная подборка



http://www.zagolovki.ru/daytheme/sammit/06Jun2007

[Daning]

Как вы считаете, чего эти антиглобалисты добиваются?

[ajkj3em]

Как вы считаете, чего эти антиглобалисты добиваются?

финансирования своей собственной деятельности

* перевод с транслита

[Daning]

И всё?

[aldep]

Как вы считаете, чего эти антиглобалисты добиваются?

Примерно того же что и хулиганы бьющие витрины и прохожих на улице.
Здоровенные лбы, которые не хотят работать, но которым некуда девать свою энергию.
Ошалели от всезозволенности и толерантности.

[Gatchinskiy]

так, между прочим ...




Жены лидеров Большой Восьмерки, и один муж.
Laureen Harper (Канада), Людмила Путина (Россия), Flavia Franzoni Prodi (Италия), Laura Bush (США), Joachim Sauer (Германия), Cherie Blair (Великобритания), Margarida Sousa Uva Barroso (жена президента Еврокомиссии), Aki Abe (Япония).

[CdR]

Ошалели от всезозволенности и толерантности.

Такая демократия нам не нужна!

[Daning]

Как вы считаете, чего эти антиглобалисты добиваются?

Примерно того же что и хулиганы бьющие витрины и прохожих на улице.
Здоровенные лбы, которые не хотят работать, но которым некуда девать свою энергию.
Ошалели от всезозволенности и толерантности.

Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic

Proponents of globalism, particularly American academic economists and political scientists, cling to it with religious fervor. The theologian Harvey Cox has drawn attention to this devotion in an article entitled “The Market as God.” Many otherwise sober business and political leaders in the United States have been carried away by globalization’s messianic claims. This phenomenon, too, is not new. Classical liberalism blinded no small number of Englishmen to the racism, genocide, and ruthless exploitation that accompanied the growth of the British empire.
…
It is critically important to understand that the doctrine of globalism is a kind of intellectual sedative that lulls and distracts its Third World victims while rich countries cripple them, ensuring that they will never be able to challenge the imperial powers.
…
There is no known case in which globalization has led to prosperity in any Third World country, and none of the world’s twenty-four reasonably developed capitalist nations, regardless of their ideological explanations, got where they are by following any of the prescriptions contained in the globalization doctrine. What globalization has produced, in the words of De Riviero, is not NICs (newly industrial countries) but about 130 NNEs (nonviable national economies) or, even worse, UCEs (ungovernable chaotic entities). There is occasional evidence that this result is precisely what the authors of globalization intended.
…
In short, the few successful economies on earth did exactly the opposite of what the gurus of globalization said they should have done. In places where economic managers had no choice but to follow the guidelines of globalization – “free” trade, sell-offs of public utilities, no controls over capital movements, the end of all national preferences – the results have been catastrophic.
…
Starting in approximately 1981, the United States introduced, under cover of globalization, a new strategy intended to weaken the sovereignty of Third World nations so that they would become even more dependent on the largesse of the advanced capitalist nations and unable to organize themselves as a power bloc to negotiate equitably with the rich countries.
…
The United States’s chosen instruments for putting this strategy into effect were the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)… What has to be understood is that both the fund and the bank are actually surrogates of the U.S. Treasury.
…
Thus was born the weird phenomenon of “moral hazard,” meaning American bankers could make outrageously irresponsible loans without any risk of having to absorb the loss or make good the money they had mismanaged. Before it was over, the 1970s loan bonanza produced a disaster exactly the sort Keynes and the reformers at the end of World War II had sought to avoid. Virtually every country in Africa and Latin America was deeply in debt.
…
In a typical structural adjustment program, the IMF and World Bank require that a country “liberalize” trade – that is, give foreigners free access to its economy. The country is also forced to reduce spending on social programs such as health care and education in order to release public funds to repay debts to foreign banks and transnational corporations… What a country gets out of such a melange of “reforms” is not economic recovery, long-term growth, or stability but a government so weakened that it usually declines into a kleptocracy, experiences periodic economic collapses precipitated by rampant speculation (Mexico, 1994-95; Thailand, South Korea, and Indonesia, 1997; Brazil and Russia, 1998; Argentina, 2000; Venezuela, 2002), and is forced to rely on U.S. corporations to provide virtually all consumer products, employment, and even public services.
…
What began as a poorly conceived program of emergency measures for debtor countries early in the 1980s slowly matured into the hard orthodoxy of the “Washington Consensus” in the 1990s. The U.S. government became determined to impose neoliberal economics on every country on earth. To do so, it unveiled its master plan, the “Uruguay Round” of international trade negotiations (1986 to 1994), and its crown jewel, created on January 1, 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO). Acting in compliance with a seemingly innocent effort to create a common set of trade of rules for all and to bring agriculture under such rules for the first time, “many developing countries discovered that in signing on to the WTO, they had,” as Bello put it, “signed away their right to development.”
…
In all, the WTO system that came into being in 1995 is a deceptive but extremely effective tool of economic imperialism wielded by rich nations against poor ones.
…
In 1999, at the WTO’s third ministerial conference in Seattle, a coalition of people with experience in Third World development programs – environmentalists, trade unionists, anarchists, and some Americans concerned about the role of the “sole remaining superpower” – advanced an alternative explanation for Third World poverty, finally unmasking the imperial, expansionist motives behind neoliberal theory. They emphasized the absence of democracy within the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO: IMF voting rules, they pointed out, are rigged so that only the richest countries have any influence.
…
The protesters’ demands for reform resonated strongly around the world, and the movement rapidly gained more adherents. By 2002, international meetings of the globalizing powers were drawing protests half a million strong.

[nemiga]

Как вы считаете, чего эти антиглобалисты добиваются?

Справедливого мира.

.

[Daning]

Как вы считаете, чего эти антиглобалисты добиваются?

Справедливого мира.

+1.

[aldep]

Ошалели от всезозволенности и толерантности.

Такая демократия нам не нужна!

Не путайте демократию и анархию.

[aldep]

Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic

И что тут нового?
Нам такое на занятиях по политинформации рассказывали году так в 83-84.

[Daning]

Нам такое на занятиях по политинформации рассказывали году так в 83-84.

Врали наверно

И что тут нового?

Да ничего. Раз вам рассказывали, значит, действительно "Ошалели от всезозволенности."

[CdR]

Ошалели от всезозволенности и толерантности.

Такая демократия нам не нужна!

Не путайте демократию и анархию.

Не путайте хулиганство и анархию!

[Fed]

What will G8 protesters have to gripe about? Globe & Mail