In 1978, we saw a revolution in the way we looked at credit. In the time before computers and the telephone, you could score credit by following certain guidelines.
The very first guideline was to credit repair. When you bought your house, the person to whom you owed kept meticulous records of your monthly payments, saving them from potential creditors who might consider taking the money they owed away from them. The recorders included mortgage companies and companies that acquired your loans and put them into trust funds. These companies were required to furnish your accounts with an appraisal before you even paid them.
By the mid ’80s, the problem was getting there as well. The newly empowered Federal Reserve was creating a new kind of credit agency, One World Bank. This created a system of lending to a new international trade, meant to protect consumers from the dangers of communism. This trade allowed for trading within a currency otherworld from that of the United States. No one anticipated the moral peril communism was about to engage in.
In 1983 and ’84, the World Bank of Korea issued a series of multibillion dollar statements bearing ominous warning, about the threat from communism. Its programs were not designed to replace trading with another country, but to promote it.
The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1985, and it was an agreement that brought commerce and trade to under one World Bank. Today, two-thirds of the American population use one, and half of all adults in the world live within two miles of a World Bank World Order.
The United States Congress passed a spending bill in 1989 that paid for these programs, but it did not do much to transform the world economy. The result was the second largest economy in the developed world – despite the fact that the United States owes a great deal to it.
The effects of the first two World Bank programs are still felt, but the key difference is that one was designed to rescue people from poverty, while the other intended to repair it. In the middle were these statements:
‘ We believe that trade becomes increasingly difficult under the rules of international economics – at the expense of the environment – Facilitators of development agendas, as well as the most progressive promoters of them.
‘ As a result, economies experience greater unemployment and more unemployment of young people as a result of their participation in policies that are designed to promote their success and to safeguard their interests.
‘ In addition to the policy aims of the first program, the programmes of the United States and of other countries are focused on the maintenance and expansion of international trade.
‘ The acceptance of currency as the basis for transactions in their products (and vice versa) is encouraged by all WTO member countries, and it is aimed at protecting international trade as a whole.
‘ In order to repay lending obligations, member countries agree to finance improvements in their currencies. Other members are not obligated to finance any activity they consider to be in the national interest. Canada, Mexico, and the United States signatory members regularly finance the activities of all WTO member countries, while other governments contribute nothing.
All of this tells us that there is no silver bullet for the problems of international credit repair. There are limitations:
If one country is not the primary author of a Program, economic experts say that other countries might not get the job because they might not be able to repay the IMF’s loans and if they do they might not be able to support the expansion of trade.
If both countries are making steady progress in developing their economies (it will be seen that USA will be a particular country) it will be difficult for the USA to push back further on their outlays. To prevent such things, the two countries will need to work together on various targeted programmes.
If there are limits to the scope of the USA’s role in international credit repair/repair, that country would have to stop all assistance except in the case of extreme public outcry.
A USA participation in the WTO would mean the elimination of the valueAdded tax since the USA’s participation would mean the tax be levied on income and capital (income and capital would be deducted from the tax liabilities), thus cutting the tax liabilities and costs. It would also increase the country’s position vis-‘- the consequences of USA economic activity on other countries (as a debtor country).
The USA is not to be ruled out that it might be an option, but only in the case of super rich countries which are hard to remit income from and where little or no external assistance would be available, the USA might happen to lose out. An economic recovery in these countries would require IMF support (which would be augmented by trade financing).
All these advantages (and disadvantages) do require a good deal of convincing to convince the world’s leaders to acknowledge the problems of international credit repair.