 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000 time: 22:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ramo
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. |
What makes you so sure that Lumumba was the exception in a region that produces an excess of Mobutus as the rule?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:28
|
|
Is no one in favor of my suggestion of forcing loan repayment but reducing or cancelling interest rates?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sikander
We need to simply tell our banks that they are on their own in this regard. Lend to Chavez and reap the whirlwind. |
Chavez was elected and hasn't kept himself in power by illegal means. He is not, therefore, a dictator.
The rule of thumb for declaring a debt odeous or not is whether or not the loan was used to improve the nation. So, in the example of Zaire/The DRC, the loans used to build the bridge would not be forgivable, but loans that were looted would be. The bridge is a capital improvement to the nation, and it is not the loan holder's fault that the dictator didn't keep up repairs. On the otherhand, loans used, for example, to build up Iraq's military could be declared odeous, and Iraq could probably get away with not paying them. The tricky part will come in showing whether the money was actually used for the project, or whether it was used to allow the dictator to syphon money away elsewhere.
Now, here's the wrench in Shi's machine. What do we do about loans that originated with dictatorships twenty or thirty years ago, that the debtor has renegotiated multiple times, because it was always told it could not have its debt forgiven. So, (pulling example out of ass), Argentina takes out a 5 billion dollar loan to pay for it's war against Great Britain. After the fall of the dictatorship, the loan gets renegotiated, to six billion, because the payments were extended over another decade (and made smaller). Over twenty years of renegotiating that debt (because the economy's been falling apart much of the time), it now owes twenty billion on that loan. Should Argentina still have to pay back that money?
|
|
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|