Bretton Woods(Oct. 14th)

    Today's class consisted of various new terminologies and concepts related to international relations. According to Mr.Paterson, trading and what we call "international relations" commenced when countries around the world got together in a conference to try and rejuvenate trade, and grow their economy after the war. Back then, the US and UK still held dominant power over the world, which resulted in creating the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank. These are worldwide organizations that play a substantial role in international relations to this day. These companies have implemented rules so their boss will always be American or European, which is so extreme, that I was shocked that companies still have such racist rules in contemporary society. Nonetheless, other countries that participated in the conference, like Mexico, had none of their ideas adopted, so after all the rich, first-world countries established rigged systems from the very beginning. Last class, Mr.Paterson explained that countries with supreme power do not want other countries infringing and interfering with their power. This results in a small number of rich countries dominating the top area of Wallerstein's theory, the core. The influence and control these countries have gained over a long history are excessive and toxic. From what I understand, such structures of society are what allow moral hazards and corrupt governments to make excessive amounts of odious debts. Mr.Paterson touched on how the majority of people in the world are against odious debt, but I then questioned why there have not been any changes. 

    A moral hazard is when the bank lends something to someone without doing a credit check nor tracking how the money will be spent, and whether if that is a good loan. There are ample cases in the past, where rich banks in rich countries lend considerable amounts of money to poorer countries. At first, lending money to poor countries sounds like a superior and generous idea, but after much demonstration and explanation in class, I think we all obtained a different, but more accurate idea of international relations. In short, I would say that the poor do not benefit from this money. To certain extents, the government may think the money they borrowed was effective in creating a solid infrastructure in the country, but whether that is beneficial to the citizens is another issue. Mr.Paterson even said these controlled and (unfair) trades are increasing the number of desperate people. After all, those who are manipulating the flow of money are organizations coming from the banking sector of extremely powerful and rich countries. Moreover, what I was imagining when I listened to this lecture was how these organizations would project what they are doing to the public. It is very likely for them to showcase their "help and assistance" as a kind and thoughtful support for those in need, which will definitely portray a nice image of the company. When reality is the absolute opposite. I could barely watch the video of innocent citizens in Bolivia being pinned down to the ground and have their basic rights violated by the police in a peaceful protest. Some people had lost their arms and legs just for protesting for their own water, which was once free. I could tell from their faces they were in excruciating pain. Fortunately, in this case, Bolivia was able to gain control over their water back, because apparently, many cases in other countries fail to win the discussion. In the first place, such abusage should not be happening, and so the citizens' wishes not being implemented, even after aggressive assaults on the roads is inconceivable. Furthermore, the US portraying the president of Bolivia as evil and an extreme communist for prioritizing their desperate citizens is (devastating). This is so contrary to what we were lectured, so I actually read a conservative broadsheet newspaper, and it was worse than what I had expected.

notes: 

core (the new inventions go here first) after it gets so established, the middle countries start to get it. and after it is widespread, then finally the poor people. technology being passed down, by the time it reaches the end, it is not cutting edge. 

Bretton Woods & the Washington Consensus

free trade zone, an area that the laws don't apply. so anyone who works in that zone is not getting health care or benefits they want. 

world mapper - increase the size of their country according to their share in the world. who got richer.  japan is so big.