Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

Not quite Sternum, this is debt we make good to the banks, not money that was spent years ago but today and tomorrow.

The G8 countries pledged to provide additional funds to compensate the World Bank and African Development Bank in full for the assets written off. They also agreed to meet any shortfall that the IMF could not cover from its own internal resources.
Brown said Britain will pay $700 million to $960 million over the next 10 years to fund the compensation package, while the U.S. will pay $1.3 billion to $1.75 billion. Germany would pay $848 million to $1.2 billion to offset future lost repayments to the World Bank and the African Development Bank.

Fair point. We'd have to pay-up. But let me get this straight: We blow $90 billion in the span of roughly one year in the name of "fostering democracy" in Iraq, and it's okay. We spend 1/90 of that over the span of ten years to bring debt relief to a dozen debt-ridden countries whose crap economies have allowed corrupt dictators to rise to power and time again, and it's not okay?

Last edited by Sternum (2005-06-12 10:42 am)

Sternum wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Not quite Sternum, this is debt we make good to the banks, not money that was spent years ago but today and tomorrow.

The G8 countries pledged to provide additional funds to compensate the World Bank and African Development Bank in full for the assets written off. They also agreed to meet any shortfall that the IMF could not cover from its own internal resources.
Brown said Britain will pay $700 million to $960 million over the next 10 years to fund the compensation package, while the U.S. will pay $1.3 billion to $1.75 billion. Germany would pay $848 million to $1.2 billion to offset future lost repayments to the World Bank and the African Development Bank.

Fair point. We'd have to pay-up. But let me get this straight: We blow $90 billion in the span of roughly one year in the name of "fostering democracy" in Iraq, and it's okay. We spend 1/90 of that over the span of ten years to bring debt relief to a dozen debt-ridden countries whose crap economies have allowed corrupt dictators to rise to power and time again, and it's not okay?

No no, not what I meant, just that this wasn't money already spent and gone but yet more to come up with.

superdoc wrote:

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

These aren't debts run-up by a dingy college student with his or her first credit card, so any analogies to that effect is simplistic at best. NATO nations basically bribed third-world dictators not to support communism during the Cold War, using the World Bank as an effective tool for laundering money. No one honestly expected the loans to ever be repaid. It was done with a wink and a handshake.

As cute as your "these irresponsible kids will never learn a lesson if we bail them out" spiel is, the truth is that thousands if not millions of innocent people are suffering throughout the third word, and making them responsible for these loans certainly isn't going to help their nations' already failing economies. To add insult to injury, the vast majority didn't even reap the benefits of the loans. If you want your pound of flesh, go to the former dictators -- such as Mobotu of Zaire -- who pocketed the cash, or better yet, the politicians who authorized these million-dollar bribes in the first place.

Last edited by Sternum (2005-06-12 9:18 pm)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

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.

Now,while this may or may not be true, what makes you think that this won't in fact have the same effect on the govts now? Do you think that the money wont disappear into the pockets of third world govts now? Or that ordinary people in those countries will benefit? These aren't altruistic utopias who's people are starving and dying simply because they lack cash. If in 20 years we are dealing with the exact same problems and the money didnt go to turn africa into a utopia, but instead was used to further keep awful regimes in power could we accuse those pushing for this debt relief of propping up dictators who abused their people?

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.

They can have no debt whatsoever, and they still are going to have nonexistent health care systems because they have no infrastructure and because they are despotic regimes who do not hold a high regard for human rights. Any money getting sent that way will disappear into the morass.

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

This is a great first step.

I'm ambivalent about it being a great first step, not because I don't want to aid those in africa dying of aids and/or malaria but because its throwing money at an insurmountable problem. The problem being, so long as these countries have govts that are not democratic or capitalistic they will not create the infrastructure to actually solve the problems they face, which can't be resolved simply through aid. They need to adopt capitalism and repect of human rights as their core values or these problems will never be solved.

And no, their education and health care systems are not miserable because of interest payments to us. Many of these countries have not in fact paid us on the interest they owe, so its hard to blame the interest (which they aren''t paying) for their education/health problems. They're terrible because of the type of govts that are runninng the countries. We can forgive all the debt, but if we have a regime for example like the khmer rouge who kiill off all the intelligentsia in their country, then forgiving them of their debt will not somehow magically make them fund schools to train new doctors.

Even if the debts they owe us are contributing to their health carae woes it again points to the problems with their govts. Many countries owe us huge interest payments, and yet still can maintain a health care system where thousands aren't dying of malaria because they can't afford the most basics of medicines. Because these countries in question cannot generate an infrastructure to take care of their people. Scapegoating us as the cause of their problems isnt going to solve their problems especially if we are expected to bail them out.

So I think the intentions are good. I even support the effort (are you by the way going to give Bush any credit on this)? But its not going to solve the problems in any way so long as these countries can't get their acts together. In fact, 20 years from now, we're going to look at this as another example of us propping up regimes who in turn did not take care of their people and who instead used the money to line their pockets.

Last edited by everlong205 (2005-06-13 1:18 am)

But thing of it everlong205, eliminating that debt would give you one more defenseless arguing point against all those corrupt people in all those anti-capitalistic lands.  Wouldn't that be worth $90 billion to you?

Wow, what an ingenius piece of political leverage.

The 18 countries covered by the agreement will receive immediate debt relief. They are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005 … -13-03.asp