Bush chooses new World Bank boss

[Rictor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6701865.stm


US President George W Bush has chosen Robert Zoellick, former deputy secretary of state, to be president of the World Bank, US officials say.

Mr Zoellick would replace Paul Wolfowitz, who resigned amid a scandal over his role in winning a new pay and promotion package for his girlfriend.

Meanwhile, AFP quoted a government source as saying that Mr Zoellick's "experience and long career in international trade, finance and diplomacy make him uniquely prepared to take on this challenge".

Apparently the word "independent" not in Bush's lexicon. After one politically appointed crony gets axed for not bothering to be keep his corruption even slightly concealed, as Bank rules dictate, Bush goes and appoints another yes-man to the post. Well, at least he had the minimal sense to appoint someone with a background in economics this time.

And yet some people still wonder why the rest of the world considers, quite rightly, the World Bank to be merely the foreign arm of the US Treasury.

edit: can someone add a "B" to the title? I should be more careful.

[Freedom-Fries]

You spelt Bush wrong

[Durandal]

Apparently the word "independent" not in Bush's lexicon. After one politically appointed crony gets axed for not bothering to be keep his corruption even slightly concealed, as Bank rules dictate, Bush goes and appoints another yes-man to the post. Well, at least he had the minimal sense to appoint someone with a background in economics this time.

You should have done a little bit more research on Mr Zoellick.

This guy IS pretty independent and the last thing I would use to describe him is a "Yes Man".

And I guess you call his background "economics" but I'd say its a whole lot more experienced and less focused than that.

As to your comments about a U.S. leadership role vs. another nationality:


The President of the World Bank is nominated by the President of the United States and elected by the Bank's Board of Governors. As of November 1, 2006 the United States held 16.4% of total votes, Japan 7.9%, Germany 4.5%, and France and the United Kingdom each held 4.3%. As major decisions require an 85% super-majority, the US can block any such major change.

That said, the board makes final approval in the end, not Bush.

But by all means, keep on crying.

[Kroforit]

You should have done a little bit more research on Mr Zoellick.

This guy IS pretty independent and the last thing I would use to describe him is a "Yes Man".

And I guess you call his background "economics" but I'd say its a whole lot more experienced and less focused than that.

As to your comments about a U.S. leadership role vs. another nationality the money that the U.S. contributes to the world bank is tax money (another illegitimate use of tax money) as soon as another nation contributes and an amount equal to or greater than what the U.S. contributes we can start talking about different leadership selection.

That said, the board makes final approval in the end, not Bush.

But by all means, keep on crying.

He was appointed by Bush, not the world - as the name of the organization implies.

[Aerosoul]

He was appointed by Bush, not the world - as the name of the organization implies.
That's how it works. President of the USA nominates xxxxxxxxxxxx for World Bank pres. The Bank's Board of Governors officially elects him. Don't like it? Tough.

[Kroforit]

That's how it works. President of the USA nominates xxxxxxxxxxxx for World Bank pres. The Bank's Board of Governors officially elects him. Don't like it? Tough.

Shouldnt it be called American World Bank then?

[Aerosoul]

Shouldnt it be called American World Bank then?
You obviously don't know the first thing about the World Bank, so go educate yourself.

[Rictor]

This guy IS pretty independent and the last thing I would use to describe him is a "Yes Man".

As to your comments about a U.S. leadership role vs. another nationality the money that the U.S. contributes to the world bank is tax money (another illegitimate use of tax money) as soon as another nation contributes and an amount equal to or greater than what the U.S. contributes we can start talking about different leadership selection.

Is your ability to vote in elections determined by the amount of taxes you paid last year? So why should the system be any different among nations? And I'll agree with you that it's an illegitimate use of tax dollars and should be stopped. It doesn't matter if one considers the World Bank to be altruistic charity or economic imperialism - neither is a legitimate aim.

As for Zoellick being a yes-man, like I said: I don't know much about him. But do you really believe that a former high-ranking State Dep. official would not be one who toes the ideological line, given how obsessed this administration is with loyalty and conformity? Last time I checked, differing opinions don't land people top-level positions such as this. You could be right, but past experience requires that I be skeptical.

[ElHombre]

I don't know much about him.

Y'all have to admit that no one has lost money on betting that a Bush admin official is incompetent. The only question is how long it takes for an official to register on the radar. :lol:

[Michael RVR]

Urr, the world bank doesn't give out US Taxpayers money, it makes its cash from financial markets trading and loan interest.

IBRD raises most of its funds on the world's financial markets and has become one of the most established borrowers since issuing its first bond in 1947. The income that IBRD has generated over the years has allowed it to fund development activities and to ensure its financial strength, which enables it to borrow at low cost and offer clients good borrowing terms.

So it's not a US institution.

The US does have the biggest say in world bank choices, but this is due to the size of it's economy, not the size of its contribution.

I guess the theory is that if you have a better economy, you should know better - thus have more of a say.

Wether it's logical to give Bush himself the choice is questionable. ;)

[Kroforit]

You obviously don't know the first thing about the World Bank, so go educate yourself.

You mean Bush nominating a president? Or is there something before that?

[Durandal]

Is your ability to vote in elections determined by the amount of taxes you paid last year? So why should the system be any different among nations?

We are not talking about a democracy. We are talking about an organization (not even TRULY a bank) that dolls out money. Your comparison is absurd.


As for Zoellick being a yes-man, like I said: I don't know much about him.

And yet, you continue to waste our time...

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Yay another Bush cronie.

I honestly can not believe such an appointment should be allowed. What ever happened to being given such important jobs based on merit as opposed to jobs for the boys.

[Aussie Sapper]

What ever happened to being given such important jobs based on merit as opposed to jobs for the boys.

C'mon mate,, are you at all surprised by this??

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Not really. I despise the world bank anyway. It's ****ing crippling developing nations.

[Aussie Sapper]

Not really. I despise the world bank anyway. It's ****ing crippling developing nations.
I will respectfully decline this opportunity to get into a political discussion on this subject, as this may lead to a very long and drawn out sort of thing, and it is nearly 11.00 pm here and I have had a long and sh*tty day.

However, I will say that the "jobs for the boys" (old school tie) sort of thing has been around (and will be) for quite a long time to come. it is simply just one of those things that we have to contend with in this world.

[Durandal]

Yay another Bush cronie.

I honestly can not believe such an appointment should be allowed. What ever happened to being given such important jobs based on merit as opposed to jobs for the boys.

Come on Min...you mean you think his achievements are not worth merit?

Just curious.

I think what he has done over the past years is enough to get him named as the World Bank president.

You guys make it sound as if the World Bank Group is some sort of Mother Theresa who simply hands out money to the poor to better their lives.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

He more or less forced Australia to accept a FTA that clearly advantaged America more then it did us. Suppose from a yanks perspective then yeah it maybe good.

[Durandal]

He more or less forced Australia to accept a FTA that clearly advantaged America more then it did us. Suppose from a yanks perspective then yeah it maybe good.

Then that would not be free trade, would it...

I theory Free Trade means open on both ends with no costs or controls in place to place one of the two trading partners in the negative.

[Rictor]

Such as agricultural subsidies and airline bailouts for example? No, we wouldn't want those, would we?

My problem with the World Bank is not that it's not Mother Theresa, which is not its job description anyway. It's that it presents itself as Mother Theresa whilst acting like Al Capone, and yet expects the world to be blind enough to clap enthusiastically.

[hauptman]

Shouldnt it be called American World Bank then?

Well, no.
Learn about the organization of the World Bank Group. 185 countries are members of the World Bank.
Every member state is represented in the Board of Governors. But those Governors only meet anually so they delegate tasks to 24 Executive Directors (for example, there is one Director who represents Afghanistan, Algeria, Ghana, Islamic Republic of Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, and Tunisia)

The US are the largest shareholder of the World Bank and by tradition the President is US-american and nominated by the US President.

Look here: http://go.worldbank.org/GVX3LVCC20

[Calanen]

I honestly can not believe such an appointment should be allowed. What ever happened to being given such important jobs based on merit as opposed to jobs for the boys.

For a man in the Australian Labor Party, I can't believe you can type that with a straight face.

All political parties appoint the people they want - why wouldn't they? On both sides of the House. Each party in opposition forgets about the appointments they made when they were in government when they criticise the current governing party.

[Merfeller]

Oh for ****'s sake, the conspiracy brigade showed up in full force again. Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush...


Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_bank

It's wikipedia, I know, but it'll at least give you the basics and explain to those of you so concerned about the US role in the organization (as it's largest shareholder) just why an American has traditionally held the presidency. It was that way before Bush and it will be that way after Bush...only then it might not be so fashionable to bash it. Also, keep in mind that the current Chief Economist is French and that a council oversees the president, AND that an independent auditing arm oversees the whole lot.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

For a man in the Australian Labor Party, I can't believe you can type that with a straight face.

All political parties appoint the people they want - why wouldn't they? On both sides of the House. Each party in opposition forgets about the appointments they made when they were in government when they criticise the current governing party.

If you look at the ALP's track record. It's appointments have generally been fair and balanced. This is a party who just recently sacked a Electrical Union boss for his comments.

The same political party that kept Stanly Bruce (former conservative PM) in London as our High Commsioner because being conservative would things easier against Churchill. Didn't always work.

Just to examples that the ALP has and can be balanced in it's appointments.

[askDNA]

If you don't know about Zoellick, read up on him. He is not a crony like Gonzalez

[JJC]

Well at least there won't be conspiracies that a Zionist is in control of world money.p-)

[Merfeller]

Well at least there won't be conspiracies that a Zionist is in control of world money.p-)

Yeah, it'll be Bilderbergers or Council on Foreign Relations/Illuminati/Skull and Bones members instead. Never a shortage of puppetmasters for the Art Bell listeners...:)

[JJC]

True, but the Zionists are always the priority behind conspiracies, so I'm sure there are a lot of Jews that are happy that the "master" of Iraq war is out from controlling the money .....

[Kroforit]

Well, no.
Learn about the organization of the World Bank Group. 185 countries are members of the World Bank.
Every member state is represented in the Board of Governors. But those Governors only meet anually so they delegate tasks to 24 Executive Directors (for example, there is one Director who represents Afghanistan, Algeria, Ghana, Islamic Republic of Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, and Tunisia)

The US are the largest shareholder of the World Bank and by tradition the President is US-american and nominated by the US President.

Look here: http://go.worldbank.org/GVX3LVCC20

By tradition i am called "the man of the house", becuase its my house.

[hauptman]

By tradition i am called "the man of the house", becuase its my house.

With the only difference that my house was built by the UN, not on my own ...

[afreu]

Such as agricultural subsidies and airline bailouts for example? No, we wouldn't want those, would we?

My problem with the World Bank is not that it's not Mother Theresa, which is not its job description anyway. It's that it presents itself as Mother Theresa whilst acting like Al Capone, and yet expects the world to be blind enough to clap enthusiastically.

Right you are.

[Brzezinski]

banks own every country

america is owned by the federal reserve and the rockafellers... a private bank that pumps out huge sums of money, loans it to the government, and the government uses the illegal income tax (rockafeller program) to pay the interest on the phoney money....

that and the lobbiests, corperations, mega-buisnesses..... they control everything around us..