Chris
'One has only to note how the IMF and World Bank set tough policy expectations on recipient nations in the past yet Western nations are now seeking to spend themselves out of trouble by increasing debt.'

The last developed country to borrow from the IMF was Britain in the 1976. The result of the conditions imposed was the demise of the Labour government.
No developed country has gone anywhere near the IMF since, and the IMF has became the lender of last resort for poor countries.
An outline model of the standard stabilization program (tough policy expectations) is given in The Unholy Trinity, Peet, Richard. Wits University Press. 2003.

1. Abolition or liberalization of foreign exchange and import controls;
2. Exchange rate devaluation;
3. Anti-inflammatory domestic programmes, including (a) control of bank credit and higher interest rates; (b) lower state budget deficits through curbs on government spending, increases in taxes, abolition of subsidies; (c) controls on wage increases, and (d) dismantling price controls, and
4. Greater hospitality for foreign private investors.

Basically these conditions equate to agreeing to create a poorly paid docile work force for the use of invading American multinationals. In order to obtain an IMF loan third world countries have to submit to economic slavery.
America controls the IMF. It uses the American habit of coming up with nice sounding phrases such as 'increase international cooperation' which translates as poor countries agreeing to being screwed or they starve.

'And for those of us who believe in the positive role of government, there are many national examples that demonstrate a much fairer distribution of resources than previous centuries in regards to a society’s social policy needs, as shaped by ongoing interaction with interest groups and public opinion.'

Is this for rich countries like Australia or for all? Can we have a healthy economy based on excesses by some and poverty for others?
For a healthy, balance and sustainable economy world wide (which is in our national interest) the IMF, World Bank and the WTO must go.

Political philosophy should be of foremost consideration. The author refers to impending Malthusian catastrophe caused by economic expansionism. The economics and political philosophy in Australia and the west generally (genesis point 50's-60's) - has been the Austrian School through the political philosophy of neo-liberalism (in all guises) and it is needless to say it has been predominant to the point of absolute. I'm not saying here that the Austrian School is lacking intellectual merit nor am I saying that there is a 'school' currently equipped to replace it (which would be impossible in any short time frame barring social anarchy) that wouldn't be regressive in the sense that in the place we are now we have come too far to even turn to socialism (a common view) and/or social democratic capitalism. To make my point economic philosophy has replaced political philosophy as the mainspring of common perception for the common good. In my opinion the root cause of today’s social malaise stem from a lack of political philosophy - meaning not some Hobbesian derivative outcome from those superior, but the generation of true social discourse aimed at ensuring as truer liberty as is possible within the constraints of individual's histories. The likes of Kant & Mills (to name the most eminent) I propose would be horrified by why what we moderns perceive as liberty and the economic, social, & economic foundations that this liberty has manifest.

consider these words:

“What the neutrality of radical equality mandates is nothing less than the legal disestablishment of morality” – Gray.

the author writes (and these are, as stated, social truths):

"There is also the reality that many societies have increasingly adopted progressive policies on race, gender, sexuality and even the environment. In addition, polls show that a majority of nations accept that democracy is the most appropriate political system to enable a nation to encourage and maintain cohesion and meet its various economic, social and environmental needs"

These things are absolute requirements for the near homogenous pseudo-religious pursuits of consumerist & materialist wellbeing within advanced economies.

This is the world we live in

ALL of the usual arguments are primitive power efforts.

And all of them are thoroughly based upon and extended from one or the other ground-pattern of generally uninspected, and, therefore, unconscious, or non-conscious, psycho-physical, or pre-verbally brain-and-nervous-system patterning being asserted, defended, protected, or otherwise exercised.

Thus, all the arguments and competitive struggles everywhere and at all times dramatized by individuals and collectves are not, at root, exchanges of IDEAS, or even of fully consciously inspected and thought-responsible examination or consideration. But all such arguments and struggles are, fundamentally, only primitive confrontations between under-lying psycho-physical patterns, or pre-verbally brain-and-nervous-system-patterned adaptations.

All of the usual confrontations of ideas are of a fixed and pre-determined, and oddly mechanical, and merely mutually contradictory nature. And altogether of such a nature as to be entirely predictable, and pre-decided, and always theatrically-dramatized program of propagandized hyper-statement versus hyper-statement, wherin the individuals, insitutions, and traditions on both sides remain insular, aggressively self-protected and monotonously self-preserved.

As the Bard said--- (tall tales) told by idiots full of sound and fury and signifying nothing (of fundamental significance)

David,

I agree that the IMF and other international institutions need reforming.

However, just how far that reform will go will be determined by balance of power considerations. It is an unforunate reality, but one that that will long remain.

My gut feeling is that diminished US or Western power will not necessarily make things much better. As I have argued previously, the problems we have today are a reflection of a power struggle not just for resources, but the influence of certainn ideas.

We all know what is fair, but each nation or group of nations will seek to serve their interests first.

As a supporter of liberalism myself, I would still argue that the world has progressed in recent decades (including international institutions).

It is just that the task of balancing national and international considerations is proving very hard (perhaps impossible) to achieve.

Hi,
The idea took by the author is very good. I am greatly obliged by the article.

joe

http://finance.bizoppjunction.com

Yes Chris, it is a problem.
How long does the world have to keep afloat the US economy for no other reason than that the US owes so much we cannot afford to let it sink? The US national interest wins again.
Matt
I have long been of the opinion that the concept that the only task of an opposition is to oppose at any cost in order to gain power is where Australian politics has lost the plot.
Is this the sort of thing you are talking about when you say a lack of politically philosophy