World Bank Embraces Open Access and Makes All of Its Research Freely Available 46
Fluffeh writes "The World Bank is taking steps toward greater transparency. It announced recently that it would be instituting a new 'Open Access policy for its research outputs and knowledge products' beginning July 1. The policy's full title is 'World Bank Open Access Policy for Formal Publications,' and the Bank says it will apply to 'manuscripts and all accompanying data sets... that result from research, analysis, economic and sector work, or development practice... that have undergone peer review or have been otherwise vetted and approved for release to the public; and... for which internal approval for release is given on or after July 1, 2012,' as well as the final reports prepared by outside parties for the Bank. Over 2,100 books and papers from 2009-2012 are already available in the repository"
what about open access to Wolfowitz's war crimes? (Score:2, Insightful)
That particular international institution lost all credibility when a psychopath with the blood of one million people on his hands was appointed at its head. I was infuriated but well, it did let us know there was something wrong with it.
This is only one more reason for citizens in concerned countries to mobilize, organize and bring back democracy to themselves. We must fight back against the international financial dictatorship in order to keep a livable world for ourselves, and we must denounce western war criminals for what they are : put them out of power, put them behind bars. Our dignity and our democracy depends on this.
Re:Great Start (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you simply described all fiat currency. Not all currency. Even paper money is based on wealth and not debt if it's representative currency backed by gold or silver.
This is simply not true. Even paper notes which are backed by gold are only valuable because one trusts that they will be able to exchange their notes for gold, which is basically the definition of debt. You give me something "worthless" (a piece of paper), and I give you something valuable in exchange (gold), trusting that you will honor your obligation to give me the gold if I need it. You are indebted to me.
which means there is never enough money in circulation to repay the debt, which means the only possibility is ever-increasing debt? Just insisting really, really hard that this can't be so will not change the situation.
I'm not denying this. This is simply not a problem, unless people lose faith in the system. Why do we need to fix the amount of currency in circulation to that which physically has been printed, or been mined from the earth? Gold has no intrinsic value of its own... what is wrong with letting currency fluctuate based on other parameters than simply "the amount of gold which we have been able to, or foresee being able to, in the near future, dig up"?
As for your quotes, you seemed to have missed the point of them.
Lincoln was saying that money should not be enshrined over a democratic government.
FDR was merely saying that which everybody knows, ie, "wealth is power" (it doesn't matter the form said wealth takes, debt or diamonds).
Ford was saying the system benefits those who have wealth more than it does those who do not. I agree that we could work towards a more level playing field.
I don't know what to make of the anonymous Banker's magazine contributor. They seem to be trying to personify a Marxist "evil greedy capitalist".
As for Jefferson, the quote has no substance to it, it is merely his opinion. It may be true, but then again, Jefferson was a slave owner, so "depriving people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent" was something he did every day when he got out of bed. How can one trust his opinion on the subject?