[Maas]

I do wonder is the US is able to pay back the debt.

[Verv]

I think it goes back to the time that your parents started holding you responsible so that you would grow up and learn that you cannot just get things for free and have to produce results.

Furthermore, who is going to give loans to someone who cannot pay for them?

It becomes a money pit.

[Oxymoron]

If you think crackheads paying you back shit man forget it.

I think Biggie said it best. What kind of precendent would that send to the poor nations its fine to be corrupt and misuse money since their will be always more guilty white boys ready to give you more.

[Verv]

And Oxy, are we even guilty anymore? These nations have been free from colonial rule for quite some time and the Portuguese are not trading tobacco for slaves anymore.

It is easy to blame whites because they represented the most powerful force for hundreds of years but to say that we retain responsibility for problems so long after when they are not correcting them is a bit ridiculous.

We should agree to fix their problems... If we can make them colonies again.

[sploop!]

In other words, you owe a debt to the local lads (US, UK etc) even though the money was borrowed by one of their mates so he could buy a bigger stick to beat you with. Now he's gone, but you still owe...
That's Capitalism in a nutshell.

[Oxymoron]

I mean its called a Loan not a hand out, the only way one learns responsibility is if their is something to lose.

[Verv]

[quote]In other words, you owe a debt to the local lads (US, UK etc) even though the money was borrowed by one of their mates so he could buy a bigger stick to beat you with. Now he's gone, but you still owe...
That's Capitalism in a nutshell. [/qote]

Would it be fair to say that socialism then would be loans that guarantee the big bully stays in power that you must repay by towing the party line and becoming slaves to Soviet policy and subject to foreign intelligence services making sure your local leftist party stays loyal?

I mean really, there is a lot of bad stuff about both systems.

Imagine if the bastard who beat you with the stick didn't get a loan but just got money for free to beat you with a stick. That would be even more interesting.

[sploop!]

Under Socialism, everybody would get a free stick. And we could all beat each other.

[Verv]

That is telling, my friend.

It is like: In socialism, everyone gets beaten. But not too bad though in some situations everyone is just getting their asses handed to them.

In capitalism: some people get beaten bad, some a little; some not at all. Some even dish out beatings. In some situations ten percent of the people are really laying out the other ninety.

That is why if I were a Filipino I would probably support a lot of social programs and protectionist economics. But as an American? Pah. Whatever.

I know idiots with college degrees and middle class lifestyles. You'd have to be a real miserable sod to not achieve that.

But there are perfectly smart jokers in third world countries that have no means to succeed. That is unfair and there should be extensive help offered to hem.

[Photonmaton]

I think this is a rather situational question. It depends on whether the debtor nation sees an economic/political advantage to having a country in debt to it or an economic/political disadvantage. It may make more sense to waive a debt because the economic growth of the country will become a better market for the debtor country in the long run. I don't see why there should be any moral quibbilings about this it's a simple weighing of consequences.

[Eauz]

Yes, for the fact that ridiculously planned loans promoted by the Western world (WTO/World Bank) that don't actually encourage development to bring about independent economic growth but dependency upon the WTO/World Bank.

It has shown to be a failure in the past (South America), why continue down the same path?

[Verv]

Hasn't it also showed real progress? After all, World Bank has given loans to China, India and Malaysia amongst others. It worked well over there as these countries have blossoming economies.

It is not always so negative.

Sometimes it might fail when used wrongly but like all loans it may even succeed.

[Eauz]

Hasn't it also showed real progress?

Yes, it has, especially with protectionist policies in place. However, it is quite incompatible in terms of the development of capitalism since some nations have a higher population, thus can compete at a higher level in the economy. Since the goal of capitalism is to eliminate the competition, those who are more suitable for the system (large population, urban populations) are no doubt going to see larger increases in growth than the other nations. Having all the nations actually developed though is quite incompatible with capitalism. However, this creates inefficiencies in terms of the labour shortage and less production if certain nations are developed while leaving others (unemployed pools) lacking any opportunity to develop. These unemployed pools can be quite useful in economic terms, but then capitalism would cease to exist.

[im6under]

Should countries dismiss debt of poor countries?

Both yes and no...

The receiving country should make every practical and reasonable effort to repay its debts.

When circumstances don't allow for repayment then the investor country should write off the loan.

Countries can have credit reports just like people. If they default, quit lending money.

Don't be a loan shark with crazy interest and if something is a grant, to a truly impoverished nation, then call it so.

make sense?[/quote]