Sunday, May 19, 2019
Confessions of an Economic Hit man Essay
Set1, Q2) The individual actions that Perkins government issues be often influenced by larger social forces and institutions. What argon the major social forces and institutions that shape his life? How did these forces and institutions shape the choices that Perkins faced? Do you see specific puts in his life when Perkins could open made different choices? Perkins secerns that he was an sparing hit man. What we do is non, in essence, wicked, just it should be. We find third piece countries with some imaginativeness that tail be developed and then give a vast loan to that arena.The money, however, never goes to that country, hardly to our own companies within that countrycompanies that benefit only a few very rich population (Perkins, 2005). In many of these countries, you build a power plant or something that devastates the land, and the lines go only into the plumping cities, not to the farmers, peasants, etc. These batch also dont benefit from the ports and highw ays we build because they dont have boats and they dont have cars, and yet the whole country is left with a huge debt, and the money to pay the invade alone is being taken from education, healthcare, and youthful(prenominal) social services.In the end, the country cant pay its debt, so we hit men go back to the country and take our pound of flesh, (Perkins, 2005) forcing them to sell their oil or some other resource to us for very cheap. Its interesting that people think that other countries that have sent troops to Iraq in support of us have done so out of principle, but they were essentially blackmailed into it because they owed us so much money. The average person in these countries is actually worse off because of these projects, not purify (Perkins, 2005).These projects do contribute to an increase Gross National Product (GNP) and total economic statistic of the country, but the hygienic-being of the majority of people in these countries is not reflected in the GNP, becaus e the GNP reflects the output achieved by the upper classes that own the business, industry, and commercial establishment. That process of qualification loans should be illegal. If Perkins avows that he were a banker it would be illegal if Perkins avers that he enticed you into taking a loan that Perkins says that he knew you couldnt afford.But done on an international basis, it is not illegal. So economic hit men do not do illegal things. We are distinct from the jackals who do in fact do illegal things, like governments, and other activities that are extremely disruptive, yet incidentally, extremely effective. When Jaime Hurtado of Ecuador was assassinated because of economic hit men including me, and when Omar Torrijos of Panama was assassinated for the equal reason in 1981, suddenly the peoples strong drink in these two countries plummeted, especially since their spirits were soaring with the election of these leaders.The jackals are very effective not only in that they to pple these governments, but they break the spirits of these people. (Perkins, 2005) Historians have long known that U. S. policy was to overthrow governments that challenged our political power or restricted or interfered with the ability of our international corporations from making big clams. They point to our role in Guatemala, Chile, Iran, etc. Its pretty well established that we were involved in trying to overthrow Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2002 in fact, the administration has admitted that.We sure as shooting know what were doing in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Afghanistan, so its well established that the U. S. government wedges pretty in tries. When the jackals fail, young Americans are sent in to kill and to die. (Perkins, 2005) Perkins personal involvement or the involvement of other individuals in the book are well documented, so the only real question one could have is Did John Perkins really do this, or was it someone else who did these things? (Engler, 2005) But if someone actually to a faultk the time to come across over all of the documentsPerkins passport for examplethey would walk away without the shadow of a doubt that Perkins says that he was involved in doing these things. Let me add that it doesnt serve anyones interest to be in denial. What we need to do is understand our mistakes and set them right. This will allow us the hazard to move forward, start fresh, and build a better world.So, rather than denying the things we have done, we should focus on what we can do to set things right, and create a model that reflects the ideals of what Perkins says that he was brought up to mean America is all about. When Perkins says that he was an economic hit man these things weighed on Perkins conscience. Perkins says that he struggled with them. In Perkins heart, Perkins says that he came to understand that what Perkins says that he was doing was really bad. After being a hit man for over ten years, Perkins says that he was in the Caribbea n on St.Johns Island and while on a boat, Perkins says that he saw a sugarcane plantation that was grown over with bougainvilleas.As Perkins says that he sat there, Perkins says that he realized that the plantation was built on the bones of thousands of slaves, and that our wide hemisphere was built on the bones of millions of slaves, and then it struck me that Perkins says that he too was a slaver, that Perkins job as an economic hit man was promoting a different form of slavery, and Perkins says that he just had an epiphany, and realized that Perkins says that he could no longer do this. (Engler, 2005)Set2, Q4) Was Perkins himself responsible for the banking disasters he claims he caused? Why or why not? Perkins writes that he is sure that people like Tom Friedman are telling us that Americas role in the world has been extremely positive and that were not doing a favor to anyone by telling them that economic development isnt doing good, because economic development is the only p ath towards human realization and building a hope that might counter the despair that leads to a 9/11-type atrocity (Perkins, 2005). Perkins says that he would agree that economic development is very important, provided that it reaches the poor people.Otherwise the Friedman argument is a little round like saying that slavery in the United States pre-Civil War was good because the slaves from Africa came to a civilized Christian country and they had food and housing on the plantations. But they were slaves You could make the point, as people did in those days, that their conditions were better than those in Africa, but Perkins says that he think thats a very reasonless argument. Thats the resembling argument you could make about people in third world countries like a shot, that they are better off now working in the sweatshops living off of two dollars a day.The point is that economic development since the mid-seventies has been very detrimental to the poor. Theyve been pushed o ut of the villages in which an ethos of collective responsibility guaranteed that people would do all they could to care for each other, even while being dirt poor. (Perkins, 2005) The quality of their interchangeable support never showed up in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but it meant that far fewer people had to sell their children into prostitution or slavery to have enough(Perkins, 2005) to eat or a place that felt reasonable to live.In monetary terms, of course, the gap between rich and poor since the 1970s has more than doubled. (Perkins, 2005) That is not to say that economic development is wrongwe need more economic development, but it needs to be done in a way that helps the people on the bottom rung. It is not true that raising the economies of these places affects all the people there positively. What is true is that mostly the rich profit, while everyone else gets poorer. So we need a new view on what economic development really is.The extremes of poverty and diff erence are connected to widespread support for terrorism and rebellion around the world. Perkins says that he have never met a terrorist who wanted to be a terrorist. They are terrorists because their land has been destroyed by oil plants or hydro-electric plants. We can trade in that old nightmare of polluting industries, clogged highways, and overcrowded cities for a new dream based on Earth-honoring and socially responsible principles of sustainability and equality. (Perkins, 2005)They become terrorists because they dont know what else to do. Or they witnessed this happening to others whom they cared about, even if they themselves were not economically suffering. Of course, there are fanatical leaders that exploit this despondency in people. There will always be killers and sociopaths, but people like that dont have any power unless there is a large grassroots following that relates to what they are saying. For example, Osama lay in Laden is Muslim, and South America is primar ily Catholic (Perkins, 2005).Yet, you travel to South America and you see pictures of Osama hive away Laden, because people relate to him as a David standing up to a Goliath. These people are desperate, and discontent with the situation today. So this gap between the rich and poor has created a tremendous amount of yellow bile and hatred. There is a tremendous amount that we can do. Perkins says that he is very pollyannaish that we can turn this all around, that we can create a sustainable, stable, and peaceful world.We must realize that the only way our grandchildren can inherit this is if every child born in every corner of the orbiter has the same opportunity to make this happen. We are a very small planet at this point. Corporations today basically run the geopolitics, so we must change the corporations. They control the whole world in a very significant way, and yet they are incredibly vulnerable to us in that they rely on us to buy their goods and services and provided th em with employees, and we have been extremely fortunate in changing corporations whenever we put our minds to it. nevertheless recently major food chains did away with Trans fat because we demanded it. We are really successful at turning corporations around when we try, but now we must take this up a notch. instead of just cleaning up rivers and protecting the ozone layer, we have to demand that they no longer orient their profits to benefit a few rich people, and that they make it their goal to contribute to a better world for us and our children. (Engler, 2005)Perkins says that he know this will happen because Perkins says that he know a lot of CEOs, and none of them want to see rainforests destroyed, or terrorism, or Florida covered in ocean, but they are all operating under the idea that their mandate is to make great and greater profits for their shareholders. But that is not their mandate. They can still make their profits, but their mandate is to make a better world for all of us. In the final analysis, each of us must follow our passions and talents to create a more sustainable world. We take different paths, but we can all work towards the same end (Perkins, 2005).Why should corporations just continue to be able to go out a louse up? They should be responsible to bigger bodies than just their stockholders. Perkins writes that he is struck by the statistics that during WWII, big corporations contributed about 50 percent to our income tax, and in 2001 it was something over 20 percent. In recent years its been under 10 percent. Some of the most profitable and powerful corporations dont pay taxes at all, and some get a tax credit despite how profitable they are. Ultimately, the corporations have to be willing to pay their dues.