BREAKING: The IMF Now Has Total Immunity To Fleece U.S. Taxpayers

0
170
ADVERTISEMENT

The new Articles of Agreement for the International Monetary Fund are the most terrifying documents I’ve seen in some time. Now, like Pharma, they operate under the protection of absolute immunity from prosecution or lawsuits.  The United States is the largest funder of the IMF, which is conveniently located in Washington D.C. This means U.S. taxpayers are on the hook for defaulted loans worldwide when Ponzi, money-printing scams go wrong. However now, there is no option to hold the IMF accountable for damages. Just like Pharma, they are free from “intrusive” accountability and lawsuits.

Check out the documents and verbiage below.



art4art1art3

 

Section 3. Immunity from judicial process

ADVERTISEMENT

The Fund, its property and its assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process except to the extent that it expressly waives its immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.

Section 4. Immunity from other action

Property and assets of the Fund, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation, or any other form of seizure by executive or legislative action.

Section 5. Immunity of archives

The archives of the Fund shall be inviolable.

Could this have anything to do with Ron Paul’s long war with the Government agency? Paul has been attempting to remove us from the Bretton Woods Agreement for over a decade and relieve taxpayers of the financial burdens resulting from defaulted taxpayer loans.  This is a long read of one of Paul’s speeches in 2003 at the House of Representatives (PDF source here). Very long, but he explains it nicely.

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, JULY 17, 2003
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and thus end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rooted in a discredited economic philosophy and a complete disregard for fundamental constitutional principles, the IMF forces American taxpayers to subsidize large, multinational corporations and underwrite economic destruction around the globe. This is because the IMF often uses the $46.7 billion line of credit provided to it by the American taxpayers to bribe countries to follow destructive, statist policies.

  • Just last year, Argentina was rocked by an economic crisis caused by IMF policies. Despite clear signs over the past several years that the Argentine economy was in serious trouble, the IMF continued pouring taxpayer-subsidized loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6 percent into the country. In 2001, as Argentina’s fiscal position steadily deteriorated, the IMF funneled over 8 billion dollars to the Argentine government!
  • According to Congressman JIM SAXTON, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this “Continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF’s generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster.”
  • Argentina is just the latest example of the folly of IMF policies. Five years ago the world economy was rocked by an IMF-created disaster in Asia. The IMF regularly puts the taxpayer on the hook for the mistakes of the big banks. Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, IMF funds end up in the hands of corrupt dictators who use our taxpayer-provided largesse to prop up their regimes by rewarding their supporters and depriving their opponents of access to capital.
  • If not corrupt, most IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity. Either way, most recipient nations end up with huge debts that they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.
  • IMF policies ultimately are based on a flawed philosophy that says the best means of creating economic prosperity is through government-to-government transfers. Such programs cannot produce growth, because they take capital out of private hands, where it can be allocated to its most productive use as determined by the choices of consumers in the market; and place it in the hands of politicians. Placing economic resources in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats inevitably results in inefficiencies, shortages, and economic crises, as even the best-intentioned politicians cannot know the most efficient use of resources.
  • In addition, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is simply immoral to take money from hard-working Americans to support the economic schemes of politically-powerful special interests and third-world dictators.
  • In all my years in Congress, I have never been approached by a taxpayer asking that he or she be forced to provide more subsidies to Wall Street executives and foreign dictators. The only constituency for the IMF is the huge multinational banks and corporations. Big banks used IMF funds–taxpayer funds–to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It’s a familiar game in Washington, with corporate welfare disguised as compassion for the poor.

campaignforliberty.org-Ron Paul Classic Shut Down the IMF

So we essentially are now harboring fiat currency loans and allowing the United States taxpayer eat up the failures and fall outs. This is little more than a Ponzi scheme in action. Remember, The International Monetary Fund is a private corporation which essentially uses our taxpayer money to fund it’s ventures and with total immunity. How fair is that?

 


Comments

comments