John Perkins wrote a book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" as a disclosure of US foreign policy to economically destroy underdeveloped countries. Perkins claims that US grants and loans increase economic inequality in recipient countries and help US gain influence using debt as a leverage.

I haven't found enough facts to make a conclusion: is this book fraudulent or Perkins' claims are true. For example, Department of State's press release (clearly interested party though) says that facts on NSA involvement are false: NSA isn't an economic institution to organize such schemes and mentioned countries leaders assassinations can't be explained with economic reasons since those countries loans were minor (compared to total US expenses on loans).

Perkins claims:

The unspoken aspect of every one of these projects was that they were intended to create large profits for the contractors, and to make a handful of wealthy and influential families in the receiving countries very happy, while assuring the long-term financial dependence and therefore the political loyalty of governments around the world. The larger the loan, the better.

Using a principle of innocence presumption I pose a question in this form: what facts prove truthfulness of Perkins' claim?

  • Your second paragraph stating infant mortality and illiteracy rates decreased after US grants and loans is not a counterargument against the claim that the US intended to use loans and grants. Please edit the question and stick to the intent, otherwise it's (just) an economic question. – user22865 Jan 29 '18 at 9:22
  • I see your point: improvements in country doesn't prove that there wasn't intent to influence and gain control over it. Does new NSA-related statements qualify as counterarguments? I'd better find proper counterarguments than change the question. – Nordik Jan 29 '18 at 10:02
  • 4
    Claims about intentions are off-topic. Can you find a more concrete claim? – Christian Jan 29 '18 at 10:28
  • Thanks for your suggestions. I've added a concrete quote from the book, that replaces my word intentions with quoted unspoken aspect. Does this sound like a more concrete claim? – Nordik Jan 30 '18 at 8:03
  • 1
    @Nordik unfortunately not, because the unspoken aspect is, in the words of your quote "that they were intended to ..." i.e. it's still all about intentions. Such things are very difficult to prove,because there's very rarely a smoking gun email of the form "let's do X in order to push forward our secret agenda Y". And practically impossible to disprove, because the absence of such an email doesn't mean that the intention wasn't there. – EnergyNumbers Jan 30 '18 at 10:36

Browse other questions tagged .