Forums | MacLife

The agreement will initially cover 18 nations eligible for debt relief under the HIPC initiative, including Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana and Mali.

Woo hoo! That's where I was born...

There's a lot of corruption there (it's easy to pay off the cops) though, as well as horrible infrastructure problems, and race relation issues (which sometimes throws the gov. into a deadlock).

It won't make a difference. Dictators come and go in these nations. The present dictators won't have to pay back now, nor will future dictators. Every few years a similar form of "loan amnesty" takes effect. The only benefit to the West (to the bankers), is to have the present dictators on their side for a few years, and this allows for the creation of selective businesses in third wold nations. These business usually last around eight years, or until the next dictator takes over. By that time all foreigners are kicked out, and a year or two later the new dictators asks for a new debt amnesty.

I suppose I wish that my charge card companies would do stuff like this amnesty thing. I can charge out my cards to the max, beg for relief, and then borrow again. And then beg for the debt to be forgiven.

If we (the richer nations) are to keep loaning money and forgiving the debt (and repeating the cycle), why not just change what it's called? Let's call it it welfare for third world nations. That's what it basically is.

I don't have a problem with helping out, but why do we call them loans when the chances are the loan won't be repaid to begin with? And how many times do we forgive the debt before we say enough is enough?

SD

On balance, I'm betting that foreign aid given to nations in Dollars (or Pounds or Euros or Yen) comes back to the donor nation at a minumum as a healthier foreign currency reserve, and then further on, as trade. That donated or loaned currency has to go towards buying stuff, and the poorer the nation, the more it has to buy stuff from wealthier nations, in the donated currency. It comes back, but instead of interest growth, the payback could be in export development or simple commodity price markup.

There's no sense in loaning out money if that money doesn't get spread around, with the dollars eventually find their way home.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2005-06-11 4:22 pm)

superdoc wrote:

ummm...yes I do Mr. SS.

And that's why I asked about the loans and them being forgiven, and then giving loans again, and forgiving those loans. And repeating the cycle over and over again.

I'm well aware of the difference between loans and aid.

SD

You were mixing them up.

If the country that is being forced to forgive the debt, should also be able to have that same amount taken out of any debt they owe themselves.   So if the US has over 500 Billion in unclaimed debts from countries and it is to forgive them, then if the US has debts to lets say the UN... that amount forgiven should be removed from the debt that we owe if any, if not then we would be given a credit which would be able to be used at any time.

And what about the taxpayers who are footing the bill?

superdoc wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

You were mixing them up.

How was I mixing them up? Your first post said they were loans. And I asked a question about it.

I was pretty much asking if they were loans or aid. And about the cycle.

So, I'll ask you: Are they loans or aid? If  current loans are now being forgiven, should future loans also be forgiven? Is it a never-ending cycle? If so, should we just call it aid and not loans?

SD

{edited for a typo or two}

Okay, sorry to get snippy.

These were loans given by organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, mostly during the 70s and 80s. These loans were supposedly given to fund engineering, infrastructure and development projects, but that was just boilerplate. In reality they were massive bribes to tinpot dictators like Mobutu (former leader of the former Zaire, now the nightmarishly chaotic Republic of the Congo).

They were loans in the sense that money was changing hands and interest was being charged, but in reality the money usually disappeared into the pockets of the third world governments. It didn't benefit ordinary people at all. Quite the opposite, it helped make their governments more corrupt.

The loans were given with full knowledge of what would happen to the money. It was all done because it was the Cold War, and the West was terribly afraid of the commies making inroads in key areas like Africa and Latin America.

It was a sad chapter in our history, but the really sad part is that all those countries, most of which have long since thrown off their dictators, are having to pay massive interest on those loans. Those interest payments have pretty much crippled these countries. Their education and health care systems are miserable or nonexistent because of the interest on loans to unelected dictators put in place, often with the help of foreign powers, without their consent.

The health care issues are especially important because of the horrible spread of AIDS and malaria.

This is a great first step.

It's vast amounts of U.S. dollars out there in the world.

You want that.

Onthebeach wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

superdoc wrote:

And what about the taxpayers who are footing the bill?

What bill? There's no bill.

Isn't part of the reasoning for this that once rid of the burden of spending a large chunk of what little foreign currency these countries have on debt repayment they are in a better position to invest in their own economic stategies and therefore might require less help in the future ie. less subsidies by foreign taxpayers?

You can't give somebody democra.....wait, that's a different thread.

Farmerkev wrote:

Onthebeach wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

What bill? There's no bill.

Isn't part of the reasoning for this that once rid of the burden of spending a large chunk of what little foreign currency these countries have on debt repayment they are in a better position to invest in their own economic stategies and therefore might require less help in the future ie. less subsidies by foreign taxpayers?

You can't give somebody democra.....wait, that's a different thread.

I'd settle for mild "repression" or democratically questionable in exchange for a decent standard of living.

assassin_bill wrote:

*assassin sighs and thinks of CD's response

Damn bums should pay their smurfing debt. What is this some kinda national bankrupcy smurf?

Are you kidding?  This has Bush's support. He'd be all over this.


And frankly, I'd probably shock the hell out of him by agreeing.  Not just with the fact that it should be done, but by saying that I thought the Bush plan made better sense than the Blair one.