|7. IMF Policies
Like central bank, on paper the international monetary fund (IMF) says [Chap1] its objectives are: (Pi) promotion and maintenance of high level of employment, and (Pii) real income, (Piii) avoidance of destructive national and international prosperity, and (Piv) reduction of burden of economic disruption.
However, from the publicly available data and research publications on the results of the actions of IMF, we find their real objectives are: (R1) transfer of wealth to top 5% of the economic class, (R2) spreading large scale poverty to the bottom fifth of population, (R3) acquire global control of economy, and (R4) control of all governments, military, the intelligence, and the police force of every nation.
The professor [Sutton] says, “In brief, the public good has been, and is today, used as a device and an excuse for selfaggrandizement by an elitist circle that pleads for world peace and human decency.” What is written and what is done are two different things.
In this section we show, from the public data and research reports that we have on IMF and CB, that these real objectives (R1-R4) are indeed real. Since IMF is funded by the CB, the IMF must execute the policies of CB. Also since it is the same money that is controlling all activities of the world, we can see the above same real objectives of CB in any activity.
One of the structural changes that IMF imposes on the fund receiving country is to implement an austerity program. This program focuses on government budget cuts, termination of government employees and services, cuts to defense spending, reduction in pensions, and lowering minimum wages [Kelley]. This is of course geared to the same goal that CB also imposes. We have seen that recently, in the imposition of austerity on Greece by the CB.
The main objective of CB is again, to setup the environment for transfer of wealth with lower priced labor force. Cutting government programs and services are required by IMF. Note that services are part of GDP. On the one hand IMF goal is to recover from GDP loss but it eliminates many services. These government cuts increase unemployment. This forces eventual reduction in salary for future employment. It then makes wealth production cheaper and transfer of wealth more beneficial, one of the prime goals of CB.
As mentioned before, we can see what IMF writes and what it does are two different things. It is designed to help the countries to make economic progress but we see that it puts people in misery, and transfers wealth to elite class. So the IMF actions definitely confirm the real objectives (R1-R4) that we have highlighted. We show examples in later sections.
During bad economic times, crises should be shared equally by rich and poor people. If salary needs to be reduced then it should be reduced for the CEOs first and then for lower salary community. Under this kind of deal no one will object to austerity. At this time austerity is seen as the hostility of rich over poor and an attempt to grab the properties of poor. The violence in Greece is a testimony of the suffering due to austerity programs [Stratfor].
The main objective of IMF should be to pour money in any country that needs it. The country will automatically solve its problems. If private corporations cannot produce jobs let the government do it. Also, since money is free, it should be tied to GDP. That is, 1% growth of GDP must be accompanied by 1% increase in money supply. This way inflation will remain low.
Destruction of Infrastructure
Another feature that IMF enforces immediately, as precondition of loan to a country, is to reduce domestic spending by increasing interest rate. This action cripples the local small and large businesses. Very quickly the manufacturing infrastructure gets destroyed. This enables the foreign donors to extract the raw materials like oil and other resources at lower prices from the nations. Eventually countries are destroyed. This was done in Russia and South Korea after the IMF funding, as shown later with numeric data from publications [Kotz] [Kim].
Clearly this is inconsistent with the stated objectives of both CB and IMF. However it is consistent with the real objectives. These are designed to transfer wealth to local elites. Within a short period many Russians became billionaires by robbing the country, naturally, by the law of conservation.
Destruction of Government
In this subsection we point out from public data and public research that CB and IMF do the following things: They confiscate government and people’s assets by enforcing privatization. They destroy democracy and maintain ignorance in the society on economic affairs. It is very important that CB remains in control by ensuring that no government of any nation becomes powerful. This is systematically implemented by eliminating employment offered by government; all jobs must be offered by private sector. Private sector employment is then controlled by CB by controlling the money supply and interest rates. This way, people remain poor and weak. They can be used against government to overthrow it and thus perpetuate the poverty.
Privatization destroys government services in health care, education and libraries, maintenance of roads and bridges, care for elderly, unemployed, and single parents. CB eliminates all these services showing its very brutal face to society. Privatization of jails increased crimes, and the number of people in jails [Glaze]. In USA prison population has soared from 1.8 million in 1980 to above 7 million in 2010, indicating deterioration of economic conditions of bottom fifth as shown also by graphs. Note that in USA prisons are privately owned, so US has the maximum number of prison inmates in the world. Privatization brought misery to millions in bottom fifth of the economy, who were only protected by government and its services.
The IMF working paper [Bernal-Verdugo] basically proposes one sided dictatorship by businesses, that is, it wants to eliminate all constraints. On one hand the CB and IMF are centralizing economic forces; and on the other hand the same paper shows that they are decentralizing political forces of government, a contradiction.