Skip to content


As usual, The Guardian entirely misses the point:

The idea that the White House should have the right to appoint the president of such an important organisation is a scandalous anachronism. But that has how it has been since the Bank and its sister organisation, the International Monetary Fund, were created as the second world war was drawing to a close. A deal was done in which the Europeans got to pick the managing director of the IMF, while the Americans got the Bank.

Much has happened in the intervening eight decades, not least the growing share of the world economy accounted for by emerging and developing countries. Unsurprisingly, the stranglehold advanced countries continue to exert over the IMF and the World Bank rankles in Beijing, New Delhi, Brasília and elsewhere, too.

Weeeelll, yes and no, yes and no.

The voting at the World Bank (actually, IBRD) is based upon shareholdings. Which are indeed distributed alongside the cash that governments put up those 8 decades back. And sure, it’s possible to reweight those shareholdings. As and when folk put up the cash to buy shareholdings. Belize wants more votes? Go buy shares, Matey.

But it’s the other point that the Guardian really misses:

His departure, Biden believes, will enable the Bank to focus on the provision of climate finance to poor countries.

It might be assumed that developing countries would be pleased by such a prospect. In fact, they are alarmed by it for two reasons. The first is concern the Bank will be diverted from its core development agenda. The emerging world certainly wants more cash for climate mitigation and adaptation but not if it is at the expense of finance for energy, transport, schools and hospitals.

Y’see? Optimisation of the human experience does not require beating climate change first, foremost and at all costs. Instead, economic growth is a greater contributor to human utility. Exactly the opposite of everything that the Guardian’s comment pages tell us then.

7 thoughts on “Ahahahahaha!”

  1. Because ‘climate change’ is an invention and obsession of developed Countries not developing Countries who see it for the nonsense and scam it is.

    It is supported or passively accepted by people who do not know want, as people in poor Countries do, but soon will.

  2. The IBRD makes loans rather than grants and these need to be repaid so it follows that projects need to generate a financial return either directly or indirectly by promoting economic development. The IDA, the grant-making arm of the World Bank, doesn’t impose projects on the eligible recipient countries.

    The error (or one of them) that socialists make is in the belief that they know best what is best for individuals or entire nations.

    Since this blog has its own and exclusive meaning for “pendant”, could “lionise” be similarly adopted?

  3. Bloke in the Fourth Reich

    Aren’t these just two of many globalist institutions we would be rather better off without?

  4. The alarm of at least some of the third world leaders would be because allocating money to “climate change” might mean that some gets diverted from its present course (where a large potion falls into their pockets) and gets spent elsewhere (where a large portion will still fall into a politico’s pockets, but possibly not them).
    Both end up as a waste, but who gets the money is quite important (to them).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *