3rd world debt

[SKipe]

do you believe that the 1st world has a duty to relieve 3rd world debt? and if so, should they simply do so, or should they have debt relief only with conditions (and what conditions?)?
Although i think that 3rd world debt relief is a step in the right direction in as far as dealing with 3rd world poverty is concerned, i believe there are certainly other things that is needed even more urgently - such as free trade. As far as debt relief is concerned however, i think it is ridiculous how the global north throws billions in aid at the global south each year, and yet still requires them to repay much more in the form of debt. some countries in africa have repayed the original debt amount more than once, and yet still owe as much (i.e. they have spent more on interest on the loan than they have in repay the loan itself). And in many countries loan repayments take priority in the budgets than even health care or education. It is clear that the debt is crippling many 3rd world countries, so why should the first world not cancel the debt?

[Milton Bradley]

I think foreign debt needs to be considered on a case, by case basis.


Where ever the U.S., the U.N., the World Bank, the International Monetary fund are found to be involved, we should cancel the debt. These people have been enslaved far too long already.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I think foreign debt needs to be considered on a case, by case basis. Where ever the U.S., the U.N., the World Bank, the International Monetary fund are found to be involved, we should cancel the debt. These people have been enslaved far too long already.

Yes, plenty of people don't like the World Bank, the IMF and NAFTA and the WTO.

We should worry about our debts first, if we are to worry about "debt" at all.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

It should be written-off, they'll never manage to pay it and trying to deprives their efforts to develop and improve their economies. But there should be conditions. This is basically what the G-8 as done and approved already. The 40 most highly indebted have already seen their foreign development debt condoned (all of these are subsaharan African governments). Other countries have also seen write-offs to the degree they've adopted the conditions required by the IMF (basically improve transperancy and combat corruption).

States whose foreign development debt has been written-off should be regarded differently from those who timely and satisfactorily have settled theirs (like Mexico). From a lender's perspective it is much more likely the ones who pay up on time will do so in future transactions, than will those who had it written-off after ongoing defaults. Implementation of anti-corruption practices and transperancy measures merits favourable consideration, but it is not clear whether this should overcome the favourable regard for those who may not have implemented such practices and measures, yet timely settled balances outstanding.

[SteveA]

Oops, I put "No" but should have put Yes, on certain conditions.

You don't want to erase all debts because that would discourage future credit, but if people have lent money to some that don't have an ability to repay it, then you can't extend the debt to others that live there.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: SKipe do you believe that the 1st world has a duty to relieve 3rd world debt? and if so, should they simply do so, or should they have debt relief only with conditions (and what conditions?)? Although i think that 3rd world debt relief is a step in the right direction in as far as dealing with 3rd world poverty is concerned, i believe there are certainly other things that is needed even more urgently - such as free trade. As far as debt relief is concerned however, i think it is ridiculous how the global north throws billions in aid at the global south each year, and yet still requires them to repay much more in the form of debt. some countries in africa have repayed the original debt amount more than once, and yet still owe as much (i.e. they have spent more on interest on the loan than they have in repay the loan itself). And in many countries loan repayments take priority in the budgets than even health care or education. It is clear that the debt is crippling many 3rd world countries, so why should the first world not cancel the debt?

It's already happening in form of capiltalism.

Poor countries have a very valuable service to offer rich countries: cheap labor.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It's already happening in form of capiltalism. Poor countries have a very valuable service to offer rich countries: cheap labor.

Good point--but no one will look at that idea, because workers are worth less than wealthy Americans and their foreign leader cronies who don't care about human rights standards.

Grandpa h.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It's already happening in form of capiltalism. Poor countries have a very valuable service to offer rich countries: cheap labor.

The fundamental difference being that our system was not set up to exploit foreign labor. This is a modern phenomenon used exclusively to keep up with other unethical practices utilized by NGO's, and goverment contractors who are able to obtain unbelievably exhorbitant profit margins by gouging the taxpayer. Now the corporate elite want to keep up with the Jones's, and they don't seem to care who they trample in the process.


Ironically, it is precisely the people who are exploiting the cheap labor sources overseas that are supposed to bear the brunt of the taxes under the original design, but again, corporate money corrupts yet another principle that this nation was founded upon.

[asterix404]

I like the idea of erasing debt based on cruption but I don't think that helps anyone. If I am a crupt dictator not paying off my debt and buying weapons, or even better paying off my debt and buying less weapons I am still really fucking up a country. I mean honestly I don't know what countries hit by the tsunami are going to do... their whole infrastructure was gone, roads... busnesses and homes. I herd estimates in the billions to fix the road ways, if that has to be barrowed even without interest bearing the weight of something like that with a country that doesn't have much of an eco. is a little too much to bear IMO.

Not to mention that there are countries who spend billions on useless crap such as proliferating the money down through certain channels and "looseing" it like a lot of US seems to do, even on a state level.

[SKipe]

Surely conditions are a waste of time? I say this for the following four reasons:

Firstly, they cannot be garaunteed. there is no reason to believe that a country is truly free of corruption, or that it is genuinely transparent. And even if it is, there is also no reason to expect that they won't return to corrupt practices once the debt has been cancelled.

Secondly, it is not the people who are corrupt who need to recieve the debt cancellation. as a matter of fact, it is the leader who are benefitting from corruption because of debt while the people at grass-roots level who need the debt to be cancelled are not getting it. The problem that i'm trying to express here is that the corrupt leaders of the countries are benefitting from corruption more than they would from debt relief, and thus they have no incentive to stop corruption in order to recieve this cancellation of debt. it is the people who are starving, who are not corrupt in the first place who need it.

Thirdly, it is an invasion of the soveriegnity of these countries. It is blackmailing them into following first-world policys in return for financial benefit. In effect it is bribing the countries who are suffering into becoming even more of puppets for the first world. the debat has always been a tool for the global north to control us, and these conditions perpetuate this.

Lastly it is hypocritical - the countries requiring us to be less corrupt or more transparent are themselves not following these rules. why should we be forced to adhere to these policies if they themselves dont? why should we be punished so devastatingly for failing in this regard if they do it everyday without consequence?

[Nono]

Quote by: rmnunez Other countries have also seen write-offs to the degree they've adopted the conditions required by the IMF (basically improve transperancy and combat corruption).

Not to mention privatize sunlight and the national air and water supply.

[Livemike]

Quote by: SteveA Oops, I put "No" but should have put Yes, on certain conditions. You don't want to erase all debts because that would discourage future credit,

Well good. I don't want 3rd world governments borrowing more money. If they
don't repay it we've done our dough, if they do they've pushed a million impoverished
foreigners down a little closer to the mud.

Quote by: SteveA but if people have lent money to some that don't have an ability to repay it, then you can't extend the debt to others that live there.

[SteveA]

I think this just shows one of the problems of government, in general, not just 3rd world ones.

When two people or 200 people make an agreement, it should truly be between them unless others have explicitly and voluntarily consented to let those people negotiate for them.

If someone has received some benefit they desired and agreed to repay it, there should be a binding obligation to repay, unless some truly unforeseen occurances happen that make this unrealistically difficult to repay, and then the debt might be discounted instead.

But a problem when these are done through typical governments is that it can be difficult to extrapolate a commitment to repay this debt beyond those in the immediate government who committed to repay it. When you credit someone, it's generally on the good faith that they have an ability to collect the resources to repay it, that's why we have credit ratings and you can't necessarily extrapolate this debt out to the country as a whole, it truly applies to the people in the government that agreed to borrow the money.

[rmnunez]

Nono, privatization is an initiative the IMF promotes as it has been found government-run enterprises tend to be monopolistic, suffer notorious cost overruns and are uncompetitive. The IMF seeks privatization often as a means by which the privatizing governments can obtain the funds they need to settle their bills. This makes sense because presumably the government doesn't have much else it can sell, we can't expect them to yield territory or some national monument and since these are poor countries they probably don't have much in the treasury.

A variety of debt condonation plans are circulating, the more leftish demand immediate and complete write-offs as some sort of entitlement. The US debt condonation plan (known as the Millenium Challenge) involves gradual write-offs based on adherence to IMF-promulgated anti-corruption and transperancy initiatives, this has some following, and, as noted, already quite a few beneficiaries. I think writing-off debt to the degree corruption is erradicated and greater transperancy applied makes sense, particularly if the former debtors are in the market for more loans.

[oranged]

I am a hegemonist. That means I think the world should all be one governed nation. I'm also a socialist, that means I think wealth should be equally distributed. I believe there could be a global revolution, where all debts are forgotten, new currency is instated, and there is a global republic, that follows an absolutely domocratic election process.

[SteveA]

Quote by: oranged I am a hegemonist. That means I think the world should all be one governed nation. I'm also a socialist, that means I think wealth should be equally distributed. I believe there could be a global revolution, where all debts are forgotten, new currency is instated, and there is a global republic, that follows an absolutely domocratic election process.

Sounds a bit like the Titanic - we place everyone on a single large ship and let them vote how long it takes to sink. I'll assume you don't want to force people onto the ship, or at least you'd allow them life boats if they wanted to get off.

P.S. Please, don't give Bush any ideas.

[rmnunez]

Oranged sounds a bit more red than orange to me.

There are numerous and well-founded reasons the world proletarian revolution with socialist wealth redistribution is unlikely ever to come to pass. People are inherently competitive, this is a cross-cultural feature easily verified observing small kids with toys in kindergartens and day cares around the world, they don't naturally share. Ingenuity is rewarded or not exercised, necessity the mother of invention. With an apportioned entitlement to whatever fraction of wealth the distributing authority assigns, each of us would become just a parasite awaiting our respective disbursement. If the government provides the housing, we have no need to pay mortgages or rents. With free passes on mass transit (if it were otherwise adequate) we wouldn't need fancy cars to get around town. With guaranteed employment (or at least its salary), full benefits and assured retirement all needs are covered. Can we underwrite this for the world's billions with Bill Gates'?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The fundamental difference being that our system was not set up to exploit foreign labor. This is a modern phenomenon used exclusively to keep up with other unethical practices utilized by NGO's, and goverment contractors who are able to obtain unbelievably exhorbitant profit margins by gouging the taxpayer. Now the corporate elite want to keep up with the Jones's, and they don't seem to care who they trample in the process. Ironically, it is precisely the people who are exploiting the cheap labor sources overseas that are supposed to bear the brunt of the taxes under the original design, but again, corporate money corrupts yet another principle that this nation was founded upon.

Huh?


You're suggesting that just because someone performs labor for a cheaper price than the US minimum wage that they're being exploited?!

How typically American of you.


If someone is performing labor for money, and they're doing it out of free will, then it's impossible for them to be exploited.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Huh? You're suggesting that just because someone performs labor for a cheaper price than the US minimum wage that they're being exploited?! How typically American of you. If someone is performing labor for money, and they're doing it out of free will, then it's impossible for them to be exploited.

If someone is doing something for money it's because they have to or they'll be shunned and dehumanized by the rest of society.

Grandpa h.

[SteveA]

Quote by: grandpa If someone is doing something for money it's because they have to or they'll be shunned and dehumanized by the rest of society. Grandpa h.

What if they bartered instead?