 |
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002 time: 05:28
|
|
Removing the debt is not fair on the lenders - If you lend out your money to a Man who says he needs to feed his family but wastes it on drink you've still lost that money and would want it back.
What would be more fair would to remove all Interest associated with the loan and allow them to pay it back on terms which would suit them better.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002 time: 05:28
|
|
There is always the situation where money is borrowed on false promises. Remember a Dictator is often voted into power before turning his country into a dictatorship, In many cases the money is borrowed before the political freedoms of the citizens are removed.
I do agree however, that in the case of Companies purposefully trading with dictatorships (like France) that there should not be protection to the companies/countries involved.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002 time: 05:28
|
|
Best Example there is , since it's a well known fact France were Iraq's (previous) best trading partner.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:28
|
|
I'm opposed to cancelling any of this debt. As has been pointed out, it's unfair to the lenders, regardless of the supposed (il)legitimacy of the government in power at the time.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:28
|
|
quote: You are worried about unfairness to the rich lenders? |
What does their economic status have to do with anything? If they lent money, they should get it back.
quote: What about the impoverished third world people who suffered under the dictatorships? They never had a choice whether or not to enter into the debt at all. |
That's funny. If I made that argument about taxes, you'd laugh.
And of course, many of these people don't even support individual freedom and capitalism and the like - take the people in Iraq, for example. I read in the NYT today that the US was disbanding the Iraqi armed forces, yet the former Iraqi soldiers threatened to fight if they didn't keep receiving paychecks. Duh, how stupid are these people?
Or, say, Nigeria. Do you really think that, in the absence of debt, Nigeria would develop a truly free society? Please 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:28
|
|
In general, No they should not be forgiven. But, they should be thought case by case, and given different solutions like take the interest away and help them to pay the lender back, like further business deals or so, and not be forced too hard to pay back too early. But not just forgiven like that.
Besides, they could just give the money to third world poor countries, we lend it. Just give it then, you don't see a dime coming back anyway. At least not in our lifetime. I'm all for helping them to pay back though, like cutting sweet deals and so, without exploiting their country too much.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zylka
|
|
The fruits of this grown-up debate are overwhelming my feable mind
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:28
|
|
quote: But if there rights are indeed naturally existant, do their political views really change that? Do you have a right to go rob Che because he wants to take away your freedom? The fact is I don't see how you are justifying making the people pay a debt they never agreed to. |
That's true, I do believe in natural rights. I just find it hypocritical that those who deny natural rights would try to claim certain rights for themselves at the expense of others.
Further, it's not as if forcing debt repayment is robbery - the money was never their's to begin with. In fact, NOT paying it back is robbery.
Now, if you want to argue interest rates, that's certainly different, and I would see little wrong with forgiving INTEREST on debts, in certain cases.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zylka
|
|
I'd like to, but then I'd be spelling things properly in a post in which I desperately need to
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:28
|
|
To come up with a concrete example, in the 60's, the CIA knocked off the hope for democracy in the Belgian Congo Patrice Lumumba, and insured the rule of ruthless dictator, Mobutu. Mobutu ruled Zaire for about 30 years. In the course of his rule, Mobutu secured lots of western loans. One of the earliest involved a billion dollar loan for a huge bridge across vast expanses of jungle; it quickly fell into disrepair (big suprise). The same thing repeated itself over and over again; either through bullshit "development" projects or Mobutu outright depositing the money into his bank account. He has lots of castles and private planes, etc., etc. for his personal amusement, but we've been forcing the people of Congo to pay for his greed. Congo is still several billion dollars in debt.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:28
|
|
quote: With the right definition of "significant weight", Yes. |
At least you're consistent, as long as you don't try to define your idea as "freedom" - it totally destroys the idea of both property and contractual agreements. Surely you aren't really telling me that if I lose my job, I shouldn't be forced to make a house/car payment or lose my house/car, are you?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002 time: 05:28
|
|
I dont think David is 'spouting rubbish' he simply beleives that what is lent should be repayed, it's a fair enough principle.
Guys, it might sound all nice to free Third world countries of debt but the ludicrous idea will never happen. But as I say, i doesnt matter how much the Fee is, When you wipe Interest on the debt and relax the timescales then the lender get THIER money back (Eventually) and the Nation isnt crippled with repayments - the Comprimise that suits everyone.
Spiffor makes an Interesting personal comparison, and in his situation he woudnt have to sell his kidney but rather be declared Bankrupt - the problem is that the consquences of allowing a 'bankrupcy norm' to be extended from Individuals to entire nations could be devastating.... World trade under credit terms would suffer a catastrophic loss of confidence.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
What do you guys think about the collection of debt in third world countries, which used to by a dictator, but have since lost their dictatorship? I think in such cases we should not continue collecting on their debts for loans taken out by dictators. Dictators, IMO, are not legitmate representatives of their people and in fact often through their regimes plunder their own country. It is not right to hold their people accountable for what the dictators do. Furthermore, if third world countries have their debt removed upon becoming a democracy, they will be in a better economic situation, and economic stability aids political stability, helping to ensure the safety of the new democracy. |
I think that the people of the country can default on bad debts from situations like that. Perhaps this is a simpler way, than officially "forgiving them". My understanding is that countries renounce debts at times. And that pretty much the debtholders have to lump it. Just as investors have to lump it if a government nationalizes (i.e. seizes) their property.
In fact, I see a lot more moral justification for a newly free country to renounce old debts, than for a newly unfree country to seize assets.
This would have the good effect of eliminating some of the moral hazard of bankers lending to dictators and of World Bank and such going to insane efforts to paper over bad loans.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|