Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
A New Start for the World Bank?
The opening up of the contest for World Bank president is a historic change whose significance has not been fully appreciated. This is not surprising, given the widespread misunderstanding of the Bretton Woods institutions (the IMF and World Bank).
The IMF’s loss of power over most middle-income countries, which has occurred since the late 1990s, is probably the most important change in the international financial system in the past 40 years. Yet it has gone largely unnoticed in the press. The Fund had been Washington’s most important avenue of influence in developing countries. It pressured governments to adopt “neoliberal” policies, sometimes known as the “Washington consensus.” These included abandoning state-led industrial and development strategies, tighter (and often pro-cyclical) fiscal and monetary policies, and often indiscriminate opening to international trade and capital flows. In Latin America especially (but also in many other countries) these policies coincided with a collapse of economic growth and therefore a drop-off in poverty reduction.
The World Bank has been part of a “creditors’ cartel” with the IMF, together pressing for neoliberal policy changes in many countries. This is still true today in some countries, but fewer, because so many middle-income countries no longer borrow from the IMF.
President Obama’s choice of Jim Yong Kim for World Bank president represents a huge break with the past. Even though the Korean-born Kim is an American citizen, he is not a politician or banker, as all of the past 11 presidents have been. Even better, he has spent most of his adult life working to improve public health. He is co-founder of Partners in Health, one of the most successful and progressive public health organizations in the world.
Mark Weisbrot is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.
This article originally appeared in Folha de São Paulo (Brazil).
Although Kim would still be the U.S. “choice” – thus continuing an indefensible 68-year unwritten rule – he is not really Washington’s choice at all, and is as unlikely as anyone of any nationality to do Washington’s bidding. It is well known that President Obama wanted to appoint Larry Summers or some other political crony. A radical change in the U.S. choice was caused by a number of factors, including oppositionfrom governments and civil society; and a reframing of the debate in the media, which began to accept the demand for an “open, merit-based selection.” Economist Jeffrey Sachs’ insurgent candidacy also played an important role in moving the debate, and Obama was looking to avoid any unnecessary controversy in an election year.
Brazil has nominated Jose Antonio Ocampo — one of the most interesting, knowledgeable, and experienced (he headed the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean and also its Department of Economic and Social Affairs) economists in the hemisphere. He is also a prominent critic of neoliberal policies. And Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, nominated by African countries, is Nigeria’s finance minister and a former Managing Director of the World Bank.
The new president will still face tough battles with the U.S. and its allies on the Bank’s Board of Directors. But Washington’s loss of control over the World Bank is a huge change that will benefit many millions of people.