The International Monetary Fund will conditionally agree to help struggling countries only if they agree to certain economic, financial, or governmental policy changes. The IMF, as the conspiracy goes, will enact a trifecta of conditions that always include reduced government spending, tax increases, and privatization of government enterprises. The reason why these reforms are included is because the IMF wants a corporatist government enterprises. While these reforms will lead to real increases in GDP and enrich a very few at the top, the vast majority of people in the country will be poor or poorer.
The austerity measures implemented by Southern Europe government devastated the nation’s economy and took an especially heavy toll on the poorer citizens. Responding to IMF concerns about its competitiveness, the governments devalued its currency, laid off government workers, cut the wages of those it continued to employ, privatized state-owned entities and drastically cut back social programs. The Socialists in those are not to blame for that crisis. It was brought on by conservatives and setting up the future socialist governments for blame.
Argentina is the latest victim has missed a deadline for repaying its debts after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling put it on track for a possible default. Last month, the court sided with U.S. hedge funds who purchased Argentina’s debt for bargain prices after its financial crisis and then refused to cut the value of their holdings, as most other creditors did. A U.S. judge then barred Argentina from repaying the majority of its creditors without also repaying the so-called “vulture funds,” which are led by billionaire Paul Singer’s NML Capital. The Organization of American States will hold an emergency meeting on the crisis this week after it was requested by Argentine representative Julio César Ayala.
In the USA citizens do not better, Fifth Amendment limited the right of eminent domain by requiring that takings be for “public use” and that “just compensation” be paid for the taken property. The term eminent domain is used primarily in the States, where the term was derived in the mid-19th century from the legal treatise, De Jure Belli et Pacis, written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625, who used the term dominium eminens and described the power as follows:
The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property.”
Many home are stolen by corporations through their government so they can get cheap real.estate. …injustice is further complicated by the fact that in many of these eminent domain cases, it’s the poorer people who are threatened with loss of their property, for the benefit of a wealthier class of people. These people tend to have much more influence and power in local government. The poorer homeowners don’t have as much clout and are subject to harassment and intimidation.
The controversial use of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” that is behind the country’s natural gas boom has come under scrutiny in the new Hollywood drama, “Promised Land,” and met stiff resistance in New York state, where a four-year moratorium against the process could soon expire. Supporters say fracking is essential to U.S. energy independence, a way to revitalize depressed rural areas with new mining jobs and gas projects. But opponents warn that hundreds of millions of gallons of chemically treated water used in the process will pollute drinking water supplies and agricultural fields. New research by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado say methane — a potent greenhouse gas — may be escaping from gas sites at much higher rates than previously thought. To dive into this firestorm of debate, today we host a debate with two supporters of fracking and two opponents. The government representing corporations finds ways to victimize people, financially, all around the world.