Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FUCK YOU LOU DOBBS!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 05:56 PM
Original message
FUCK YOU LOU DOBBS!
I stuck up for you all this time on immigration but I'm not listening to Chavez bashing from you any more. I love Hugo Chavez. He's RIGHT! Bush is the DEVIL and I'm glad he said it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Lou also thinks that elderly black people who don't have
birth certificates should pay to get photo IDs so they can have their votes flipped by Diebold. Fuck him is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. This upsets me 100 times more than any remarks about Chavez
The abuse of American citizens by this administration is just horrendous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knowbody0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. he's an arrogant ignorant fool
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. The funniest thing is after he finished calling Chavez
And Danny Glover names, he says that he doesn't think there should be any name calling. I was like WHAT!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. Personally, I detest Lou Dobbs.....
Who threw Wes Clark off his show cause Lou didn't like Clark's dissent on the Bush's admin adventures in Iraq in early 2003!

Lou is actually more wrong than right....and sooooo pompous too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. You know. He just doesn't get it....
He was bitching the other day about Oaxona Mexico, where the people are taking over the government and he blamed Chavez, he said it was a bad thing. Well. If the people in Mexico took over their country, they wouldn't be starving and have to come up here in the first place. He needs to make up his mind. He hates Fox but doesn't want leftist either.
That doesn't even make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy M Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. I guess from now on Chavez will replace Bill Clinton...
for all the problems in the world, according to Bushco and the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QuestionAll... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. pissed me off big time too today.
there are times I appreciate his candor like on voting machines and how he lambasts the administration and against outsourcing, etc..

but today's show was a hugely major dissapointment. I really thought he was smarter than that - but making it sound like Chavez is even a bigger idiot than bush sounds so bloody dumb. he had many ways to handle this one and he chose the Pelosi/Rangel one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. fuck 'em all
time for all these hags to get on the bread line...make their days in the sun over. Fade to black CNN...fade to black
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. Why everybody hates Chavez
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 06:17 PM by Joanne98
Saturday, Sep 16, 2006
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1818
By: Greg Palast - The Progressive

You’d think George Bush would get down on his knees and kiss Hugo Chávez’s behind. Not only has Chávez delivered cheap oil to the Bronx and other poor communities in the United States. And not only did he offer to bring aid to the victims of Katrina. In my interview with the president of Venezuela on March 28, he made Bush the following astonishing offer: Chávez would drop the price of oil to $50 a barrel, “not too high, a fair price,” he said—a third less than the $75 a barrel for oil recently posted on the spot market. That would bring down the price at the pump by about a buck, from $3 to $2 a gallon.
But our President has basically told Chávez to take his cheaper oil and stick it up his pipeline. Before I explain why Bush has done so, let me explain why Chávez has the power to pull it off—and the method in the seeming madness of his “take-my-oil-please!” deal.

Venezuela, Chávez told me, has more oil than Saudi Arabia. A nutty boast? Not by a long shot. In fact, his surprising claim comes from a most surprising source: the U.S. Department of Energy. In an internal report, the DOE estimates that Venezuela has five times the Saudis’ reserves.

However, most of Venezuela’s mega-horde of crude is in the form of “extra-heavy” oil—liquid asphalt—which is ghastly expensive to pull up and refine. Oil has to sell above $30 a barrel to make the investment in extra-heavy oil worthwhile. A big dip in oil’s price—and, after all, oil cost only $18 a barrel six years ago—would bankrupt heavy-oil investors. Hence Chávez’s offer: Drop the price to $50—and keep it there. That would guarantee Venezuela’s investment in heavy oil.

But the ascendance of Venezuela within OPEC necessarily means the decline of the power of the House of Saud. And the Bush family wouldn’t like that one bit. It comes down to “petro-dollars.” When George W. ferried then-Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia around the Crawford ranch in a golf cart it wasn’t because America needs Arabian oil. The Saudis will always sell us their petroleum. What Bush needs is Saudi petro-dollars. Saudi Arabia has, over the past three decades, kindly recycled the cash sucked from the wallets of American SUV owners and sent much of the loot right back to New York to buy U.S. Treasury bills and other U.S. assets.

The Gulf potentates understand that in return for lending the U.S. Treasury the cash to fund George Bush’s $2 trillion rise in the nation’s debt, they receive protection in return. They lend us petro-dollars, we lend them the 82nd Airborne.

Chávez would put an end to all that. He’ll sell us oil relatively cheaply—but intends to keep the petro-dollars in Latin America. Recently, Chávez withdrew $20 billion from the U.S. Federal Reserve and, at the same time, lent or committed a like sum to Argentina, Ecuador, and other Latin American nations.

Chávez, notes The Wall Street Journal, has become a “tropical IMF.” And indeed, as the Venezuelan president told me, he wants to abolish the Washington-based International Monetary Fund, with its brutal free-market diktats, and replace it with an “International Humanitarian Fund,” an IHF, or more accurately, an International Hugo Fund. In addition, Chávez wants OPEC to officially recognize Venezuela as the cartel’s reserve leader, which neither the Saudis nor Bush will take kindly to.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1818

Politically, Venezuela is torn in two. Chávez’s “Bolivarian Revolution,” a close replica of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal—a progressive income tax, public works, social security, cheap electricity—makes him wildly popular with the poor. And most Venezuelans are poor. His critics, a four-centuries’ old white elite, unused to sharing oil wealth, portray him as a Castro-hugging anti-Christ.

Chávez’s government, which used to brush off these critics, has turned aggressive on them. I challenged Chávez several times over charges brought against Súmate, his main opposition group. The two founders of the nongovernmental organization, which led the recall campaign against Chávez, face eight years in prison for taking money from the Bush Administration and the International Republican Institute. No nation permits foreign funding of political campaigns, but the charges (no one is in jail) seem like a heavy hammer to use on the minor infractions of these pathetic gadflies.

Bush’s reaction to Chávez has been a mix of hostility and provocation. Washington supported the coup attempt against Chávez in 2002, and Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld have repeatedly denounced him. The revised National Security Strategy of the United States of America, released in March, says, “In Venezuela, a demagogue awash in oil money is undermining democracy and seeking to destabilize the region.”

So when the Reverend Pat Robertson, a Bush ally, told his faithful in August 2005 that Chávez has to go, it was not unreasonable to assume that he was articulating an Administration wish. “If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him,” Robertson said, “I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war . . . and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.”

There are only two ways to defeat the rise of Chávez as the New Abdullah of the Americas. First, the unattractive option: Cut the price of oil below $30 a barrel. That would make Chávez’s crude worthless. Or, option two: Kill him.

Q: Your opponents are saying that you are beginning a slow-motion dictatorship. Is that what we are seeing?

Hugo Chávez: They have been saying that for a long time. When they’re short of ideas, any excuse will do as a vehicle for lies. That is totally false. I would like to invite the citizens of Great Britain and the citizens of the U.S. and the citizens of the world to come here and walk freely through the streets of Venezuela, to talk to anyone they want, to watch television, to read the papers. We are building a true democracy, with human rights for everyone, social rights, education, health care, pensions, social security, and jobs.

Q: Some of your opponents are being charged with the crime of taking money from George Bush. Will you send them to jail?

Chávez: It’s not up to me to decide that. We have the institutions that do that. These people have admitted they have received money from the government of the United States. It’s up to the prosecutors to decide what to do, but the truth is that we can’t allow the U.S. to finance the destabilization of our country. What would happen if we financed somebody in the U.S. to destabilize the government of George Bush? They would go to prison, certainly.

Q: How do you respond to Bush’s charge that you are destabilizing the region and interfering in the elections of other Latin American countries?

Chávez: Mr. Bush is an illegitimate President. In Florida, his brother Jeb deleted many black voters from the electoral registers. So this President is the result of a fraud. Not only that, he is also currently applying a dictatorship in the U.S. People can be put in jail without being charged. They tap phones without court orders. They check what books people take out of public libraries. They arrested Cindy Sheehan because of a T-shirt she was wearing demanding the return of the troops from Iraq. They abuse blacks and Latinos. And if we are going to talk about meddling in other countries, then the U.S. is the champion of meddling in other people’s affairs. They invaded Guatemala, they overthrew Salvador Allende, invaded Panama and the Dominican Republic. They were involved in the coup d’état in Argentina thirty years ago.

Q: Is the U.S. interfering in your elections here?

Chávez: They have interfered for 200 years. They have tried to prevent us from winning the elections, they supported the coup d’état, they gave millions of dollars to the coup plotters, they supported the media, newspapers, outlaw movements, military intervention, and espionage. But here the empire is finished, and I believe that before the end of this century, it will be finished in the rest of the world. We will see the burial of the empire of the eagle.

Q: You don’t interfere in the elections of other nations in Latin America?

Chávez: Absolutely not. I concern myself with Venezuela. However, what’s going on now is that some rightwing movements are transforming me into a pawn in the domestic politics of their countries, by making statements that are groundless. About candidates like Morales , for example. They said I financed the candidacy of President Lula , which is totally false. They said I financed the candidacy of Kirchner , which is totally false. In Mexico, recently, the rightwing party has used my image for its own profit. What’s happened is that in Latin America there is a turn to the left. Latin Americans have gotten tired of the Washington consensus—a neoliberalism that has aggravated misery and poverty.

Q: You have spent millions of dollars of your nation’s oil wealth throughout Latin America. Are you really helping these other nations or are you simply buying political support for your regime?

Chávez: We are brothers and sisters. That’s one of the reasons for the wrath of the empire. You know that Venezuela has the biggest oil reserves in the world. And the biggest gas reserves in this hemisphere, the eighth in the world. Up until seven years ago, Venezuela was a U.S. oil colony. All of our oil was going up to the north, and the gas was being used by the U.S. and not by us. Now we are diversifying. Our oil is helping the poor. We are selling to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba, some Central American countries, Uruguay, Argentina.

Q: And the Bronx?

Chávez: In the Bronx it is a donation. In all the cases I just mentioned before, it is trade. However, it’s not free trade, just fair commerce. We also have an international humanitarian fund as a result of oil revenues.

Q: Why did George Bush turn down your help for New Orleans after the hurricane?

Chávez: You should ask him, but from the very beginning of the terrible disaster of Katrina, our people in the U.S., like the president of CITGO, went to New Orleans to rescue people. We were in close contact by phone with Jesse Jackson. We hired buses. We got food and water. We tried to protect them; they are our brothers and sisters. Doesn’t matter if they are African, Asian, Cuban, whatever.

Q: Are you replacing the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as “Daddy Big Bucks”?

Chávez: I do wish that the IMF and the World Bank would disappear soon.

Q: And it would be the Bank of Hugo?

Chávez: No. The International Humanitarian Bank. We are just creating an alternative way to conduct financial exchange. It is based on cooperation. For example, we send oil to Uruguay for their refinery and they are paying us with cows.

Q: Milk for oil.

Chávez: That’s right. Milk for oil. The Argentineans also pay us with cows. And they give us medical equipment to combat cancer. It’s a transfer of technology. We also exchange oil for software technology. Uruguay is one of the biggest producers of software. We are breaking with the neoliberal model. We do not believe in free trade. We believe in fair trade and exchange, not competition but cooperation. I’m not giving away oil for free. Just using oil, first to benefit our people, to relieve poverty. For a hundred years we have been one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world but with a 60 percent poverty rate and now we are canceling the historical debt.

Q: Speaking of the free market, you’ve demanded back taxes from U.S. oil companies. You have eliminated contracts for North American, British, and European oil companies. Are you trying to slice out the British and American oil companies from Venezuela?

Chávez: No, we don’t want them to go, and I don’t think they want to leave the country, either. We need each other. It’s simply that we have recovered our oil sovereignty. They didn’t pay taxes. They didn’t pay royalties. They didn’t give an account of their actions to the government. They had more land than had previously been established in the contracts. They didn’t comply with the agreed technology exchange. They polluted the environment and didn’t pay anything towards the cleanup. They now have to comply with the law.

Q: You’ve said that you imagine the price of oil rising to $100 dollars per barrel. Are you going to use your new oil wealth to squeeze the planet?

Chávez: No, no. We have no intention of squeezing anyone. Now, we have been squeezed and very hard. Five hundred years of squeezing us and stifling us, the people of the South. I do believe that demand is increasing and supply is dropping and the large reservoirs are running out. But it’s not our fault. In the future, there must be an agreement between the large consumers and the large producers.

Q: What happens when the oil money runs out, what happens when the price of oil falls as it always does? Will the Bolivarian revolution of Hugo Chávez simply collapse because there’s no money to pay for the big free ride?

Chávez: I don’t think it will collapse, in the unlikely case of oil running out today. The revolution will survive. It does not rely solely on oil for its survival. There is a national will, there is a national idea, a national project. However, we are today implementing a strategic program called the Oil Sowing Plan: using oil wealth so Venezuela can become an agricultural country, a tourist destination, an industrialized country with a diversified economy. We are investing billions of dollars in the infrastructure: power generators using thermal energy, a large railway, roads, highways, new towns, new universities, new schools, recuperating land, building tractors, and giving loans to farmers. One day we won’t have any more oil, but that will be in the twenty-second century. Venezuela has oil for another 200 years.

Q: But the revolution can come to an end if there’s another coup and it succeeds. Do you believe Bush is still trying to overthrow your government?

Chávez: He would like to, but what you want is one thing, and what you cannot really obtain is another.

Investigative reporter Greg Palast, who interviewed President Hugo Chávez for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), is the author of “Armed Madhouse: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War,” from which this is adapted.

Original source / relevant link:
The Progressive
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freedom_from_Chains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Great article, thanks for posting. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QuestionAll... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. thanks so much for posting this transcript!
confirms it, doesn't it?
chavez is an evil murderous dictator!

lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
9. Lou Dobbs was never a liberal or a socialist or any form of leftism.
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 06:18 PM by Selatius
Dobbs views make him out to be a paleocon, but paleocons never liked socialists. A lot of DUers agree with Dobbs on the outsourcing of jobs, some on immigration, but that's basically it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FoxOnTheRun Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. 911, NAU, voting machines
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
12. Why everybody hates Chavez!
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 06:24 PM by Joanne98
Starting in the “lost decade” of the 1980s, the policies which sprouted from the “Washington consensus” have increased poverty and despair throughout the continent on an incalculable scale. The IMF and World Bank forced austerity measures, deregulation, privatization of public services and resources, as well as painful cuts to social programs and education. The “free market” policies have curbed hyperinflation, but left 128 million Latin Americans living on less that $2 a day.

Chavez’s political fortunes are due in large part to the widespread rejection of the exploitative neoliberal policies and market-oriented reforms that have failed to reduce poverty. His ascendancy has breathed life into a vision of socialism that is essentially non-ideological, but deals with the immediate needs of the people and the obligation of government to meet those needs.

Chavez’s new-found wealth and celebrity presents a serious challenge to Washington. The Pentagon issued a report 2 years ago that warned of the dangers of “radical populism” spreading through Latin America. The Bush administration is concerned that real democracy will take root in the region and undermine the dominant role of US industry.

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney02132006.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
14. I just read on another site that in
the Bible that the "Devil" is also called the "Prince of Lies".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Well DAMN
The guy was EXACTLY right about Devil Bush afterall!

I suspected that Devil Dumbya lied more than your average politician!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. And People are Dying and getting Maimed with
chimp's lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Bush seems to get a kick out of holding the power of life or death
in his hands and smirking as he gives the thumbs down. He is not a sane, normal, human IMHO.

He is the "Major World Calamity of the Millennium" that the old ones predicted. The Mother of all Millennium Bugs!"

I thought years ago that I detested the sight of Bush I about as much as anyone I ever saw...but after seeing the son I know Poppy was just a short preview of the horror ahead. The sight of any member of the Bush family almost makes me vomit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. I have that visceral in my
gut reaction to all things chimp, likewise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
16. Why everybody hates Chavez
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 06:28 PM by Joanne98
Washington Consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Washington Consensus is a phrase initially coined in the early 1990s to describe a relatively specific set of ten economic policy prescriptions that were considered by the phrase's originator to constitute a "standard" reform package promoted for crisis-racked countries by Washington-based institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and US Treasury Department.

Subsequently, the term acquired a second, broader connotation, being widely applied, generally in a pejorative sense, to describe a less-precisely stipulated gamut of policies stated to be promulgated by so-called neoliberal economists (again, a term most often applied pejoratively) as a formula for promoting economic growth in many parts of Latin America and other parts of the world. In this sense, it is argued that the Washington Consensus policies propose to introduce various free market oriented economic reforms which are theoretically designed to make the target economy more like that of First World countries such as the United States.

The Washington Consensus is the target of sharp criticism by individuals and groups who argue that it is a way to open up less developed Latin American countries to investments from large multinational companies and their wealthy owners in advanced First World economies. As of 2006, several Latin American countries are led by socialist governments, some of which openly oppose the Washington Consensus. Critics frequently cite the Argentine economic crisis of 1999-2002 as the case in point of why the Washington Consensus policies are flawed, as they argue that Argentina had previously implemented most of the Washington Consensus policies as directed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
18. Lou Dobbs is excellent
He's been the only prominent TV commentator to draw attention to the disasters of "free" trade, and how it's destroying our workforce and the country.

He's a self-described "lifetime Republican" who's more of a Democrat than some of our own. I think he's one of the best people on TV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
19. Why everybody hates Chavez!
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 06:33 PM by Joanne98
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/washington.html
Washington Consensus
The phrase “Washington Consensus” is today a very popular and often pilloried term in debates about trade and development. It is often seen as synonymous with “neoliberalism” and “globalization.” As the phrase’s originator, John Williamson, says: “Audiences the world over seem to believe that this signifies a set of neoliberal policies that have been imposed on hapless countries by the Washington-based international financial institutions and have led them to crisis and misery. There are people who cannot utter the term without foaming at the mouth.” <1>

Williamson originally coined the phrase in 1990 “to refer to the lowest common denominator of policy advice being addressed by the Washington-based institutions to Latin American countries as of 1989.” <2> These policies were:

Fiscal discipline
A redirection of public expenditure priorities toward fields offering both high economic returns and the potential to improve income distribution, such as primary health care, primary education, and infrastructure
Tax reform (to lower marginal rates and broaden the tax base)
Interest rate liberalization
A competitive exchange rate
Trade liberalization
Liberalization of inflows of foreign direct investment
Privatization
Deregulation (to abolish barriers to entry and exit)
Secure property rights
Since then, the phrase “Washington Consensus” has become a lightning rod for dissatisfaction amongst anti-globalization protestors, developing country politicians and officials, trade negotiators, and numerous others. It is often used interchangeably with the phrase “neoliberal policies.” But, as Williamson also states:

Some of the most vociferous of today's critics of what they call the Washington Consensus, most prominently Joe Stiglitz... do not object so much to the agenda laid out above as to the neoliberalism that they interpret the term as implying. I of course never intended my term to imply policies like capital account liberalization...monetarism, supply-side economics, or a minimal state (getting the state out of welfare provision and income redistribution), which I think of as the quintessentially neoliberal ideas. <1>

Clearly, the definition of the term has gone well beyond the control of Williamson and other economists. That is, if you believe it is useful to talk of a Washington Consensus. Moses Naim, the editor of Foreign Policy, has argued that no such consensus exists. Naim highlights the fact that economists are often divided over such issues as the East Asian crisis, the need for an international financial architecture, and the effectiveness of “open” trade policies. “If this sample represents the Washington Consensus, then just imagine what a Washington Confusion would be like,” he says. <3>

Some of today’s policy discussion, however, might still be understood by using the term as a reference point. For instance, Dani Rodrik argues that there now exists an “Augmented” Washington Consensus, which in addition to the items listed above, adds: <4>

Corporate governance
Anti-corruption
Flexible labor markets
WTO agreements
Financial codes and standards
“Prudent” capital-account opening
Non-intermediate exchange rate regimes
Independent central banks/inflation targeting
Social safety nets
Targeted poverty reduction
Clearly, the debate continues about the Washington Consensus, its definition, its successes and failures, and whether it even exists. As many of the Washington Consensus’ policy components – however it is defined – relate directly to trade policy, it is a debate worth following.




Last updated April 2003

http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/washington.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
21. FUCK YOU LOU!
Damn, that felt gooooooood:)................
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
23. !
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
25. I started a new thread......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerry-is-my-prez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
26. If I had a penny for every time I've either said that or thought that...
....I'd be very wealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
28. One day, DU love him and next day, DU hate him... LOL
I'm confuse... :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. that cracks me up too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
29. Dobbs is perhaps the straightest shooter out there!!!!!!!!!!!!.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
30. Lou Dobbs is a Republican
Nothing new there.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
32. PROOF Bush is the Devil....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Joanne98> excellant post, it should definitly have it's own thread!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-23-06 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. I may do that today!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
33. Joanne98 you are not alone
Even Air America doesn't get it and bashes him. I feel like there's no hope when we Americans are so protective of this pampered punkassed Prince W.

Republican jingoism and name calling works. BushCo knows it, Conservative talkshow hosts know it, cable news hairdos know it, and Chavez knows it.

Put down you arrogant snobbery and start name calling Democrats. It works and we god damn well better start working it before it's too late.

Gays bash back, why wont democrats?

Republicans do nothing but bash... and that crap really works, so work it!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC