this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
60 points (100.0% liked)
Funny
111 readers
49 users here now
Funniest content on all Lemmygrad
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's one of the big takeaways I got from Michael Hudson's Superimperialism, specifically chapter 8, American Strategy Within the World Bank, and chapter 9, The Imperialism of US Foreign Aid.
In those chapters, among other things, Hudson discusses how a Mathusian population control became World Bank policy, due to how their loans needed to be used to support high value export industries and not development of domestic production let alone agriculture for food sovereignty. Some imperial officials began to see how this would also be very useful in terms of oppressing anyone who wouldn't follow the Washington Consensus, and as a sort of "kill switch" to make sure that exploited countries wouldn't be in any position to do anything once their valuable natural resources are fully depleted. A country reliant on food imports yet with no means of generating the foreign currency to buy said imports would very quickly collapse and thus pose no threat to the empire.
Furthermore the food aid programs of the US are designed to prop up domestic agriculture by providing a customer for all the surplusses produced. Without a buyer, US farmers would suffer from a price collapse, so their surplus product, primarily grains, are sold via "aid" programs (being careful not to displace sales that would have happened anyway). This is all structured in a way similar to the USD denominated loans (or is indeed paid for with this debt), in that in order to earn the dollars required to pay for the food, products the US wants must be produced and exported.
Got it, thanks!