britain goes to saudi arabia with begging bucket

[maladroit]

we might be in bigger trouble than i thought...



British PM seeks IMF cash from Saudis
Last Updated: Sunday, November 2, 2008
CBC News

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is trying to top up the International Monetary Fund's reserves by convincing oil-rich Gulf states to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars.

Brown said on Sunday he expects Saudi Arabia will help boost IMF reserves, which would be used to help bail out economies hit hardest by the global financial crisis.

"The Saudis will, I think, contribute so we can have a bigger fund worldwide," he said after a meeting with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah late Saturday and business leaders early Sunday in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

The IMF has already given emergency loans worth $30 billion US to Iceland, Hungary and Ukraine. Pakistan is asking for a $5 billion bailout.

The IMF's reserves for bailouts total $250 billion, but Brown said hundreds of billions more will be required as more countries ask for help.

"The oil producing countries, who have generated over $1 trillion from higher oil prices in recent years, are in a position to contribute," Brown said.

Any funds from Gulf states are unlikely to be pledged before a meeting of G-20 nations to hammer out potential reform of the global financial system to prevent a repeat of the current crisis. The meeting, scheduled for Nov. 15 in Washington D.C., will also be attended by Abdullah.

"I believe that your country has a crucial role to play and your voice must be heard," Brown told a breakfast meeting of business leaders in Riyadh, before leaving for Qatar, his second stop of a four-day tour.

Last week, he called for a doubling of the emergency fund used by the IMF to prop up ailing economies, and said China and Russia, each with large foreign exchange reserves, are in a position to help.

[B.Basher]

Oh god. At what price?:wtf:

Still, goes to show the difference between US and UK... We ask very, very politely for it :thumbsup: .

[apocolips31]

More like begging for it lol.

[B.Basher]

Not that it says begging anywhere in the story or anything, lets just make assumptions like smart and clever people :thumbsup: .

[Gatekeeper777]

I just hope that when the Saudi's bail you guys out they use lots of their OIL as lube cuz they will own a big hunk of you.
Just like the CHINEESE owns a big hunk of the USA after the 700 billion bail out.
Can we say GLOBAL depression?

[maladroit]

japan, china, and saudi arabia already owned a big chunk of the usa before the bailout...about a year ago, china was able to use it's US investments to blackmail the bush administration into backing off it's punitive economic threats to china over the fixed exchange rate...china doesn't need WMD to take out the usa - it has weapons of mass investment

here is a small chunk of what foreigners own:
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

[apocolips31]

Like they really would make it public if they did. I bet we don't know half of the things that are said behind closed doors.

[dragonrider]

Just to be clear, Britain was not going to the Saudi's to "beg" for money for THEMSELVES --- it was for money for the International Monetary Fund. The IMF money is used to stabilaize countries who are in true jeapoardy, and I doubt the British have ever taken an IMF loan for THEMSELVES. It is not that alarming that the UK is going to countries with money like Saudi Arabia, to ask them to fund the IMF for to make loans to OTHER countries, like Pakistan. But if it ever does get to the point that the UK or the US has to take out an IMF loan, it is time to start stocking up on beans, rice and ammo!

[GoldenBoy812]

japan, china, and saudi arabia already owned a big chunk of the usa before the bailout...about a year ago, china was able to use it's US investments to blackmail the bush administration into backing off it's punitive economic threats to china over the fixed exchange rate...china doesn't need WMD to take out the usa - it has weapons of mass investment

here is a small chunk of what foreigners own:
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

The so called weapons of mass investment is a double edged sword. The main point or idea to be derived from this is the fact that once they were to start selling treasuries (US) on the open market it will begin to increase the yields of said securities, therefore sparking a "race to the bottom" devaluation process.

This would then prompt the US to envoke protectionist measures to damage the Chinese economy who is wholefully dependant on high levels of US negative net exports.

In doing so, all the nations and banks that hold reserves of US treasuries will face a massive devaluation period themselves that will force massive collatoralization due to the nature of which these reserves are used. There is the big difference though.

Although it would be a major pain in the ass (as it would be in any country), it will hurt the US much less than other countries for two reasons:

1.) US wealth and GDP is not dependant upon international trade.

2.) The US is very much able to act in a self sustaining role where most of the world cannot.

Basically tens of millions of Chinese would die of starvation within less than a year, when the world economies stop purchasing goods from a country that tried to end the world.

[overgrowthegovt]

I find it interesting that the western world officially refuses to recognize tyrannies (North Korea, feels negotiating with Iran is a disgrace, etc.) except where there's money involved. Saudi Arabia has to be one of the most brutally oppressive human rights-abusing nations in existence today, but as long as they have something to offer economically, that's fine. But if a country tries to keep their resources for themselves or is a little too stingy in giving the West their cut, there's talk of how we need to either put an embargo on them or violently install a democracy.

As to the current situation, things are looking pretty ugly. I really hope the world can clean up its financial shit, and hopefully some kind of better world order will emerge. Hopefully one with less emphasis on corporations and big paternalistic government.

[maladroit]

china isn't entirely dependant on the usa...about 1/4 of china's exports go to the usa, and 1/10 of china's imports are from the usa...more importantly, the exports are not controlled by the government, and it is doubtful that US tarriffs would cause a significant reduction in trade

in 2000, china held $60 billion in US treasury notes...today, china controls more than $600 billion...that's the biggest increase of any foreign lender in history...china can tell uncle sam to sit down and mind his manners

[maladroit]

"But if a country tries to keep their resources for themselves or is a little too stingy in giving the West their cut, there's talk of how we need to either put an embargo on them or violently install a democracy."

- or in the case of iran in the 1950's and venezuela in the 2000's, there was US government action to violently overthrow democracies that nationalized their oil industries

[overgrowthegovt]

"But if a country tries to keep their resources for themselves or is a little too stingy in giving the West their cut, there's talk of how we need to either put an embargo on them or violently install a democracy."

- or in the case of iran in the 1950's and venezuela in the 2000's, there was US government action to violently overthrow democracies that nationalized their oil industries

Exactly, man! And Cuba in the early 1960s...the big reason for the embargo was that Castro made moves to nationalize the industry in Cuba that had until then been dominated by America. The U.S. had no problem whatsoever with their former puppet, Batista, because he tyrannized his people and let the U.S. dominate their economy. For placing the economy in Cuban hands, Castro was told the U.S. wouldn't buy Cuban sugar anymore. Having been shat on by one superpower, they of course become friends with the other (the U.S.S.R.) and adopt a communist style of government. The Congo in the 1960s is another example. Fuck, the West doesn't have any problem with tyranny whatsoever, they just hate economic localization.

[GoldenBoy812]

china isn't entirely dependant on the usa...about 1/4 of china's exports go to the usa, and 1/10 of china's imports are from the usa...more importantly, the exports are not controlled by the government, and it is doubtful that US tarriffs would cause a significant reduction in trade

A simple Keynesian multiplier will express that there is much more than the nominal value of net exports gained by trading with the US. Where injection equals leakage, the first step will be 1 to 1, but steps 2 through infinity spur even more economic growth in terms of GDP that you must take into consideration. Because they are not a debtor nation, and because their marginal propensity to consume domestic goods has a very very very small pool (in terms of population) to choose from, China is too fragile to cause any "ruckus" so to speak.


in 2000, china held $60 billion in US treasury notes...today, china controls more than $600 billion...that's the biggest increase of any foreign lender in history...china can tell uncle sam to sit down and mind his manners

Japan has a much higher holding, are we also controlled by Japan? At best there is a stalemate in regards to hegemonic attitude from the US.

[GoldenBoy812]

- or in the case of iran in the 1950's and venezuela in the 2000's, there was US government action to violently overthrow democracies that nationalized their oil industries

Iranian and Venezuelan democracy? :S2:

[maladroit]

the usa successfully overthrew the democratically elected leader of iran, and installed/supported a brutal right wing dictator:
The overthrow of democracy in Iran - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/06/books/bk-keddie6)


the usa tried to start a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader of venezuela:
Venezuela coup linked to Bush team | World news | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela)


the usa even tried to overthrow it's own democracy:
Business Plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)


democracy is for suckers...funny stuff indeed! ha ha ha...

[flyingimam]

the usa successfully overthrew the democratically elected leader of iran, and installed/supported a brutal right wing dictator:
The overthrow of democracy in Iran - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/06/books/bk-keddie6)


the usa tried to start a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader of venezuela:
Venezuela coup linked to Bush team | World news | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela)


the usa even tried to overthrow it's own democracy:
Business Plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)


democracy is for suckers...funny stuff indeed! ha ha ha...

I think reading this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man)and then checking out the reactions made to it is an eye-opener, regardless of how accurate this thing is. these kind of stuff will always remain controversial because those accused hold the power and totally deny it, there wont be any evidence of anything, ever!! until a whistle blower comes along or documents become unclassified after decades
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man)

I would say anyone interested in politics and in economy should read this, it never hurts, it may add up to your knowledge base & worldview though;)

[maladroit]

i read that book...it was so poorly written that it made me wonder who would hire that guy to handle high level negotiations...i believe in the author's allegations of economic imperialism, but i don't think he could have played a significant role in it

[flyingimam]

i read that book...it was so poorly written that it made me wonder who would hire that guy to handle high level negotiations...i believe in the author's allegations of economic imperialism, but i don't think he could have played a significant role in it

thats my whole point. cuz some ppl cannot even imagine anything near that happening. it only opens up your mind to the possibility... which by itself is a lot when u know about economy and international politics n history, u may be able to start questioning certain things and just dont be so 100% confident about what u r fed thru the media or by the officials