Developing countries want say in world finance

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s denunciation of the crisis as one “created by white people with blue eyes” is a blunt summation of developing countries’ stance ahead of the Group of 20 summit Thursday.

Now thats how to get someone to take your opinion under consideration.

India will use Thursday’s summit to challenge what it says is creeping protectionism costing Asian jobs following a report from the World Bank last week that of the G-20 members, 17 have failed to keep promises made at their last meeting in November to fight anti-trade policies.

If Asian manufacturing based companies didn't see this comming than they are just plain incompetent. If a country's economy is going to hell in a hand basket the last thing they would be expected to do would be to encourage importing. When you're having trouble you help yourself first, and the guy on the other side of the world later.

China is being unusually forthright in challenging the U.S.-led global order, contending that its rapid response to the downturn—including a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus package—proved the superiority of its authoritarian, one-party political system. It wants more influence over the IMF in return for putting up more money.

So they did the exact same thing as every other country in the world and they expect to be rewarded for it? And last time I checked the words 'authoritarian' and 'one-party' weren't exactly the two features I would think of when selecting my favorite form of government.

When developing nations bring some finances to the table, then they can have a say. Otherwise, they can just mind their own business and continue running their dictatorships and destroying their own counties economies. Developed countries don't need Lula's help in screwing up the worlds economy - they are doing that just fine by themselves at the moment.

Of course, the political leaders of so called 'developing countries' would say that. At the very least they have to ensure they are seen by their own supporters to be taking an appropriate stand rather than doing nothing.

The truth is though. the so called 'developing countries' have been bled white for decades by the West, particularly the last two. Forced into contracts by institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, that sold them high interest loans and forced them to accept being preyed upon by giant corporations building developments that served Western interests and allowing the 'developing country' to be picked clean of its natural resources, milked of its life blood like a bear in a cage.

But the other unpleasant truth is that most of those 'developing countries' are led by governments made up a-typical politicians who are at best 'there-for-themselves' cowardly politicians, and at worst unscrupulous and corrupt. Their like have been cultivated by the West since their countries were set up (directly or indirectly by the West) as nation states. Even while Brazil's latest incarnation of one of those a-type politicians actually states the truth, ultimately they want nothing more than a slice of the pie for themselves. There is no interest in pursuing a fundamental change to the system that would ensure that such catastrophic event taking place again would be unlikely, not only for their countries but for the world as a whole.

wolfpack-what finances should they bring to the table?all they are asking for is to be at least heard on that platform.have you thoroughly looked at IMF and world bank's policies to the least developed.?have you forgotten they supply these developed countries with the needed raw materials?

demanding an immediate increase in funding for developing nations." demand!

“created by white people with blue eyes” is a blunt summation of developing countries’" No, its a blunt statement, now move over Anglos

Blame the rich White countries. More hot air from countries that can't get their stuff together.

"Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s denunciation of the crisis as one “created by white people with blue eyes” is a blunt summation of developing countries’ stance ahead of the Group of 20 summit Thursday."

Pity their is no futures market for sour grapes that have spent centuries on the vine, they'd be rich beyond their wildest dreams.

Blame the rich White countries." Well, you know, not for nothing, but you guys are not known for doing anything about it. So its easy to blame you. Just keep quiet man.

Q: Why is Brazil considered a developing country? it is 10th in richness and at one time, it was the richest country in the world I believe...

What's that old joke? Brazil is the country of the future - and always will be.

The "white people with blue eyes" gambit is similar to that used by the likes of Chavez and Mugabe...

'Superiority of authoritarian, one-party political system.."what ? what will you achieve with this banana system if the West did not invest finance and technology into China for the last 30 years? Superiority my foot ,just the sound of it enough to make me run to the toilet.

The white blue eyed countries were at some time in the past also developing countries, they didn’t ask for aid, there wasn’t anybody to ask. Sorry, but yes, they took what they needed to build their countries into what they are today. But they also worked hard at developing internal structures that helped their own people, education, medicine & social housing & as corrupt as they doubtless were they didn’t bleed their own country so dry that it collapsed. Beggars using blackmail demanding that the white blue eyes give them what they want need to get more done in their own countries to prove they are worth helping.

Sorry, history is cruel, face it & get on with life.

And just for reference I am neither blue eyed nor white.

[Currently the head of the IMF is always a European and the head of the World Bank is an American, under informal agreement.] So let's appoint a couple of African leaders and see how long these organizations last. They'd take them down with their corruption.

Just a little an addendum to Taniwha's comment.

The IMF's structural adjustment policies have been disastrous in the majority of cases in which it has been forced upon a country. I say forced because these desperate countries have no one to turn to but the World Bank and IMF when things get dire.

In order to secure a loan from the IMF, the country must sign a contract that stipulates it will carry out the following conditions (among others):

1) Fiscal Austerity and focus on loan repayment

cut government spending meaning health care, education, and infrastructure investments are heavily reduced. What happens is people fall ill and have no safety net (health care) to fall back on. They can't work, lowering production and causing the country to be unable to service its loans. They are thus forced to sell at a loss. Additionally, a nation that is forced to sell it's natural resources for example timber loses out on the income multiplier effect. As a simple example, if instead of just selling the timber as is, the nation was to cut the timber, sell it to a furniture manufacture, who sells it to an exporter the money "multiplies" and travels across many hands.

2) Remove government subsidies to farmers Somewhat related to fiscal austerity is that farmers will receive no aid from the government but have to grow products that can be sold on the open market. The farmers that sell these products on the world market cannot compete with the commodities from Western nations, whom are heavily subsidized.

3) Focus on export driven growth, in the form of commodities

This means that you have to extract resources from your land and sell it on the open market at unsubsidized prices. Or grow a small number of crops (wheat, rice, corn etc) and sell that on the open market while competing with farmers from western nations, whom ARE subsidized.

4) Stabilize markets, raise interest rates and open up trade in order to spur foreign investment

These nations inevitably do not have the ability to house a proper stock market and high interest rates have the effect of discouraging borrowing from small businesses. In addition, capital flight is an enormous risk that could trigger market collapses (see the Asian Financial Crisis).

These conditions reinforce one another, leading to a vicious circle of futility. In comparison, during economic recessions (like now), no Western nation raises interest rates and cuts government spending because it would be suicide. And yet, this is exactly what the IMF expects a borrowing client to do. Also, farm lobby groups are among the most well entrenched special interest groups and are really the antithesis of free trade.

The fact that the head of the IMF, without exception has always been a member of the privileged class and Caucasian European causes understandable mistrust of the IMF by the developing nations.