Debt relief for 18 of the poorest nations...

[LiquidR]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050610/1/3sx0u.html

I really hope this goes through. If so it would be a tremendous gesture and legacy.

Another link for US citizens:

http://www.one.org/

[Powerdoc]

Let's hope that it will work.
The plan looks nice, but we will have to see how it work in practice.

The money who was supposed to pay the debt, will be employed for care and food : let's expect that corrupt people living in this countries, will not put it in their (dirty) pockets.

[LiquidR]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Let's hope that it will work.
The plan looks nice, but we will have to see how it work in practice.

The money who was supposed to pay the debt, will be employed for care and food : let's expect that corrupt people living in this countries, will not put it in their (dirty) pockets.

I doubt that the debt relief will line the pockets of those a-holes directly, since what is being planned is a forgiveness of the debt by it's creditors.

The problem will be monies sent to help feed and build and educate.

[Protostar]

SO basically we loan them money and then allow them to default on the loan? And this is supposed to be a good thing how?

[kneelbeforezod]

Same reason that a bankrupt person not being required to spend the rest of his or her life in indentured servitude is a good thing.

[Protostar]

Same reason that a bankrupt person not being required to spend the rest of his or her life in indentured servitude is a good thing.

It maybe a good thing for the deadbeat loser who is not able to pay back the loan, but it's not good for the creditor. If someone (ie a bank) loans you money it is understood that you will pay them back the principal plus interest. "I've fallen on hard times" is not an excuse in my opinion.

[kneelbeforezod]

If a nation (or individual, or organization) is hampered by severe debt, the likelihood of it ever becoming productive is greatly reduced. Having fully developed, productive trading partners for mutually profitable future trade makes much more sense than maintaing a small trickle of interest payments that will never put a dent in the principal.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
If a nation (or individual, or organization) is hampered by severe debt, the likelihood of it ever becoming productive is greatly reduced. Having fully developed, productive trading partners for mutually profitable future trade makes much more sense than maintaing a small trickle of interest payments that will never put a dent in the principal.

Good resume.

[Protostar]

If a nation (or individual, or organization) is hampered by severe debt, the likelihood of it ever becoming productive is greatly reduced. Having fully developed, productive trading partners for mutually profitable future trade makes much more sense than maintaing a small trickle of interest payments that will never put a dent in the principal.

But the creditor doesn't care about the debtor being prodcutive, all he cares about is getting his money back (plus the interest owed). It is better for the creditor that they make continuous interest payments forever anyway b/c if they never make a dent in the principal then you will always have a guranteed source of income.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Protostar
But the creditor doesn't care about the debtor being prodcutive, all he cares about is getting his money back (plus the interest owed). It is better for the creditor that they make continuous interest payments forever anyway b/c if they never make a dent in the principal then you will always have a guranteed source of income.

We need all of the countries in the world to become rich countries. Rich people demand clean air and water, and are less likely to accept environmental damage.

Forgiving the debt is a good thing, because it is a way of aiding the poor countries without giving them money directly. If you give them money it usually lines the pockets of dictators (which is why having the US Armed forces on one nation building excercise after another is a good thing, they will not become rich until they become democracies first).

If we were getting continuous interest payments forever, it would be against our best interest, and dangerous for the survival of humanity. This is why I also think that outsourcing is a good thing, even though my job just got outsourced to Turkey.

[Protostar]

We need all of the countries in the world to become rich countries. Rich people demand clean air and water, and are less likely to accept environmental damage.

Oh yes, because I am SO concerned about the environment. :rolleyes: ....NOT!!

If we were getting continuous interest payments forever, it would be against our best interest, and dangerous for the survival of humanity. This is why I also think that outsourcing is a good thing, even though my job just got outsourced to Turkey.

How is it against our best interest? Getting interest payments forever is always good because it is a contiuous source of income.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Protostar
Oh yes, because I am SO concerned about the environment. :rolleyes: ....NOT!!

How is it against our best interest? Getting interest payments forever is always good because it is a contiuous source of income.

If you don't care about the environment or the social condition of people in africa, I can see why you would think that.

But I am glad that you are not in charge. GWB is not well known for his service to the poor - why do you think that he is forgiving the african debt?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Protostar
Oh yes, because I am SO concerned about the environment. :rolleyes: ....NOT!!



How is it against our best interest? Getting interest payments forever is always good because it is a contiuous source of income. Dude you have to measure everything on the "warm fuzzy feeling" meter. All the other gauges on the dash like the "profitability", "common sense", "responsibility" and "fairness" meters are small and just for show. The big fluffy one in the middle is the only one that really counts.

You big meanie.

[e1618978]

You big meanie

Yeah - where is the Ghost of Christmas Future when you need him?

[LiquidR]

Originally posted by e1618978
GWB is not well known for his service to the poor - why do you think that he is forgiving the african debt?

He realizes that if we force those nations to flounder in poverty, then it will become a breeding ground for future terrorists.

With this gesture a lot of ground could be gained on a lot of issues. Enviromental, economic, political etc... For the whole world.

It may not follow conventional wisdom, but it is the right thing to do. It is also the FAR wiser thing to do.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by LiquidR
He realizes that if we force those nations to flounder in poverty, then it will become a breeding ground for future terrorists.

With this gesture a lot of ground could be gained on a lot of issues. Enviromental, economic, political etc... For the whole world.

It may not follow conventional wisdom, but it is the right thing to do. It is also the FAR wiser thing to do. Well here in the real world, the reality is this gesture will do nothing to curb terrorism. Generations of terrorists have been taught that the US is evil. The people that fall for the hype are neither open minded or smart enough to see the value of the gesture.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by Protostar
But the creditor doesn't care about the debtor being prodcutive, all he cares about is getting his money back (plus the interest owed).
A short sighted creditor perhaps. In this case the net present value of forgiving the debt and encouraging development promises to be greater than the net present value of trying to collect the debt.

There are 'conditionalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditionalities)' to the current G-8 plan that render it less altruistic than it might seem at first sight. The push to quickly liberalize markets and open up to western investment may lead to these developing countries being less competitive than they would have been were they allowed to develop at a slower pace with unconditional debt forgiveness. I'm hoping that these predictions prove to be little more than empty complaints though.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Dude you have to measure everything on the "warm fuzzy feeling" meter. All the other gauges on the dash like the "profitability", "common sense", "responsibility" and "fairness" meters are small and just for show. The big fluffy one in the middle is the only one that really counts.

Forgiving the debt of the developing world measures highly on the "profitability" (trade with future trading partners is profitable for everyone), "common sense" (reducing poverty reduces terrorism), "responsibility" (to our fellow man) and "fairness" (not forcing countries to spend more on interest payments than on health and education combined, thus ensuring an inescapable poverty trap for generations of entire populations) meters for those of us who have a clue about economics.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Forgiving the debt of the developing world measures highly on the "profitability" (trade with future trading partners is profitable for everyone), "common sense" (reducing poverty reduces terrorism), "responsibility" (to our fellow man) and "fairness" (not forcing countries to spend more on interest payments than on health and education combined, thus ensuring an inescapable poverty trap for generations of entire populations) meters for those of us who have a clue about economics. That's all true only if the forgiven governments are run properly to avoid further debt and to encourage economic growth and education. Of course there is no guarantee for any of that.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by NaplesX
That's all true only if the forgiven governments are run properly to avoid further debt and to encourage economic growth and education. Of course there is no guarantee for any of that.

Which is why you need to invade the worst of them, and install pro-democracy, pro-growth governments.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by e1618978
Which is why you need to invade the worst of them, and install pro-democracy, pro-growth governments. Of course.

Hey, I'm not saying the gesture was wrong, I'm just saying it's a stretch to say it's going to make terrorists like us, create better trade partners or even help the environment.

We can all hope these are the results, but I'm not willing to bet the farm.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
Which is why you need to invade the worst of them, and install pro-democracy, pro-growth governments. And no doubt you will be volunteering to go do some of the dirty work wherever it is needed right?

[Towel]

In an ideal world, this is great. But someone had to loan them all that misued money in the first place, and I hope the terms of the settlement include some disincentive to those banks/companies/instiutions/governments so that they don't turn around and start peddling off irresponsible loans all over again. What's the disincentive if you've made back the principle many times over on interest payments and, when the default comes, get the loans paid in full by charitable Western governments, anyway? It's just like American credit card companies - some of the blame must lie on those who make credit available too easily with no safeguards on how it's spent.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Dude you have to measure everything on the "warm fuzzy feeling" meter. All the other gauges on the dash like the "profitability", "common sense", "responsibility" and "fairness" meters are small and just for show. The big fluffy one in the middle is the only one that really counts.

Dear Protostar and NaplesX.

In sub-Saharhan Africa, there are many nations that cannot afford to build hospitals, roads or schools, or innoculate and educate their people. They have massive debts to repay, which they will never be able to repay, to nations which do not need the money and who can afford to build roads, hospitals and schools.

People in these crippled countries live in poverty. People do not live as long there as we do.

We don't need the frigging money. They can't repay it. They deserve the opportunity. We're talking about a continent and the lives of human beings here.

While you're sneering and talking about returns on loans you're not going to miss, people are dying of diseases they don't need to die from in hospitals you wouldn't believe. This is a simple statement of fact.

Glad you're comfortable, though. Gives me a fuzzy feeling.

[Omega]

Who gives a fuck, they are black bastards anyway :no:

These people need help. Can you read that, HELP.

I find it amusing that Naples equated them to being terrorists. :grumble:

edited due to personal attack. - rageous

[LiquidR]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Well here in the real world, the reality is this gesture will do nothing to curb terrorism. Generations of terrorists have been taught that the US is evil. The people that fall for the hype are neither open minded or smart enough to see the value of the gesture.

Maybe we can use this as a first step to reverse that trend. There was a reason that hated Germany and Japan became allies after WWII, the Marshal Plan.

My philosophy: When it's time to kick some ass, kick ass. When it's time to be compassionate, be compassionate. In both do it whole heartedly, don't half ass it.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
And no doubt you will be volunteering to go do some of the dirty work wherever it is needed right?

You don't understand - I am completely selfish. If making the 3rd word countries rich will make my life better, then so be it. If paying somebody else to stomp them will do the same, then likewise.

Going to fight a war myself would be completely against my core principals. I want the world to be safe, clean, and technologically advanced so that I (and my decendants) can lounge around the pool eating grapes.

The good thing is that things that make my life (and the lives of people like me) better are usually good for the world, so our selfish impulses result in a better world (at least, for those that think long term enough).

[Protostar]

That's all true only if the forgiven governments are run properly to avoid further debt and to encourage economic growth and education. Of course there is no guarantee for any of that.

+1. What he said.

Dear Protostar and NaplesX.

In sub-Saharhan Africa, there are many nations that cannot afford to build hospitals, roads or schools, or innoculate and educate their people. They have massive debts to repay, which they will never be able to repay, to nations which do not need the money and who can afford to build roads, hospitals and schools.

People in these crippled countries live in poverty. People do not live as long there as we do.

We don't need the frigging money. They can't repay it. They deserve the opportunity. We're talking about a continent and the lives of human beings here.

While you're sneering and talking about returns on loans you're not going to miss, people are dying of diseases they don't need to die from in hospitals you wouldn't believe. This is a simple statement of fact.

Glad you're comfortable, though. Gives me a fuzzy feeling.

The reason I have little sympathy for the African is because Africa is the richest continent in the world and yet most of it's inhabitants live in poverty. If that's not irony at it's highest I don't know what is. Most of the wars in Africa are over nothing! If they would quit bickering over nothing and work together than they wouldn't need help from the West. But they refuse to do that so I have little sympathy that these banks and other financial institutions are taking advantage of them.

And by the way we could always use more money. That's the one thing you can never have to much of.

Nipple equates anyone that isn't a Jesus-Juice™-Drinking-Bush-Believer with terrorists. And not just any kind of terrorists, say, like IRA or ETA. No, no. They're Islamic terrorists. He preferes to call them al-Qaeda, though he himself doesn't really know what al-Qaeda is.

Alot of terrorists do reside in Africa and my question to you is: If they hate us so much why should we help them? I'm not going to help someone who hates me, regardless of how much they need it.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Omega
I find it amusing that Naples equated them to being terrorists. :grumble: Either you are just acting stupid or you ARE stupid.

I did not equate anyone to terrorists. I was replying to this statement:

Originally posted by LiquidR
He realizes that if we force those nations to flounder in poverty, then it will become a breeding ground for future terrorists.

:no:

Learn to read. That's the beauty of these kinds of things - the whole convo is there for all to see.


edited omega quote to reflect edit to his original post. as well as removed some unnecessary digs. - rageous

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Compassionate conservatism.

These unpayable debts are killing people. Not figuratively, not metaphorically, but directly.

This thread is now over.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Compassionate conservatism.

These unpayable debts are killing people. Not figuratively, not metaphorically, but directly.

This thread is now over. How is that, if they are not paying them?

[Protostar]

Compassionate conservatism.

These unpayable debts are killing people. Not figuratively, not metaphorically, but directly.

This thread is now over.

The debts aren't killing people, they're killing themselves. Like I said if they would drop their meaningless squabbles about what boundery line ends where and help themselves they wouldn't need the West to give loans and/or aid. I also don't understand the problem of asking people to pay back their debts. It's a basic financial principle: you loan people money on the expectation of them paying you the principal back plus interest. They weren't FORCED to take the loans, they could have said no.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Protostar
The debts aren't killing people, they're killing themselves. Like I said if they would drop their meaningless squabbles about what boundery line ends where and help themselves they wouldn't need the West to give loans and/or aid. I also don't understand the problem of asking people to pay back their debts. It's a basic financial principle: you loan people money on the expectation of them paying you the principal back plus interest. They weren't FORCED to take the loans, they could have said no.
It's not as simple as squabbles about boundary lines, for a start. Even if it were, Madagascar is an island. The west African nations have stable borders.

I just don't get it. We have a chance to help poor nations work themselves out of poverty by letting them off debts they can't afford to pay and which we won't miss. We're giving them a chance to build themselves some prosperity with dignity. We don't need the money. They're paying debts to banks instead of distributing polio vaccines and building hospitals.

I understand what you're saying about 'basic financial principles'. I'm suggesting that basic humanitarian principles like empathy, respect for the dignity of others and a desire to see moral justice served are more becoming to all of us.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
It's not as simple as squabbles about boundary lines, for a start. Even if it were, Madagascar is an island. The west African nations have stable borders.

I just don't get it. We have a chance to help poor nations work themselves out of poverty by letting them off debts they can't afford to pay and which we won't miss. We're giving them a chance to build themselves some prosperity with dignity. We don't need the money. They're paying debts to banks instead of distributing polio vaccines and building hospitals.

I understand what you're saying about 'basic financial principles'. I'm suggesting that basic humanitarian principles like empathy, respect for the dignity of others and a desire to see moral justice served are more becoming to all of us. Well, once again, the gesture seems to be a noble one, I just don't think we should expect ANY return for it. It is just a gesture, that will have no effect on the world view of the West. It will be downplayed and swept under a rug. The US will continue to be EVIL, and people will continue to blame it for every ail.

To be clear, I don't think it will hurt anything, but it not help in any way whatsoever.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, once again, the gesture seems to be a noble one, I just don't think we should expect ANY return for it. It is just a gesture, that will have no effect on the world view of the West. It will be downplayed and swept under a rug. The US will continue to be EVIL, and people will continue to blame it for every ail.

To be clear, I don't think it will hurt anything, but it not help in any way whatsoever.
It's more than a gesture, it's a moral obligation, Naples. In my opinion, anyway. Wether it has an effect or not, wether it affects the world opinion about the West or not, it's something we gotta do.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
It's more than a gesture, it's a moral obligation, Naples. In my opinion, anyway. Wether it has an effect or not, wether it affects the world opinion about the West or not, it's something we gotta do. We gotta give money to irresponsible governments?

That what this boils down to.

[LiquidR]

Originally posted by NaplesX
We gotta give money to irresponsible governments?

That what this boils down to.

The reasons of why this is the right thing to do has nothing to do with their governments. This has to do with trying to do something to begin alleviating the suffering of common people. Whose, only real crime was the misfortune of being born under the wrong flag.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by LiquidR
The reasons of why this is the right thing to do has nothing to do with their governments. This has to do with trying to do something to begin alleviating the suffering of common people. Whose, only real crime was the misfortune of being born under the wrong flag. I think we all understand that.

The only problem is not only are we forgiving billions in debt, but now we are sending these governments another 100 billion to make the governors richer and who knows if it ever gets to the people.

Only time will tell.

I say this process will happen again in 5 - 10 years. So much for helping the common folk.

[LiquidR]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I think we all understand that.

The only problem is not only are we forgiving billions in debt, but now we are sending these governments another 100 billion to make the governors richer and who knows if it ever gets to the people.

Only time will tell.

I say this process will happen again in 5 - 10 years. So much for helping the common folk.

Naples,

I'm often accused of being jaded and cynical. My outlook on the world is often pessimistic, but I have hope.

Not to preach,(really bad paraphrase) but once someone asked Jesus who was brother or friend, he said the person who feeds those that are hungry and clothes those that are cold.

I do enjoy the creature comforts afforded me. I lust for the rich man's gold. But humanity can do a better job, we haves know what it means to get shit on by the have mores, let's not continue to shit on the have nots.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by LiquidR
Naples,

I'm often accused of being jaded and cynical. My outlook on the world is often pessimistic, but I have hope.

Not to preach,(really bad paraphrase) but once someone asked Jesus who was brother or friend, he said the person who feeds those that are hungry and clothes those that are cold.

I do enjoy the creature comforts afforded me. I lust for the rich man's gold. But humanity can do a better job, we haves know what it means to get shit on by the have mores, let's not continue to shit on the have nots. You have hope that this won't happen, maybe:

"Look at Swaziland. One of the poorest countries in the world with a male life expectancy of 37 years. What has the king just done? Bought brand new BMW's for all eleven of his wives. A really great use of international aid and a great advert for the benefits of monogamy in a country with a 40% HIV rate." - found in discussion of a BBC article.

here is the 20 poorest countries gdp/per capita:

1 East Timor $ 500
2 Somalia $ 500
3 Sierra Leone $ 500
4 Malawi $ 600
5 Tanzania $ 600
6 Burundi $ 600
7 Congo, Republic of the $ 700
8 Congo, Democratic Republic of the $ 700
9 Comoros $ 700
10 Eritrea $ 700
11 Ethiopia $ 700
12 Afghanistan $ 700
13 Niger $ 800
14 Yemen $ 800
15 Madagascar $ 800
16 Guinea-Bissau $ 800
17 Zambia $ 800
18 Kiribati $ 800
19 Nigeria $ 900
20 Mali $ 900

The bolded ones also made this list by http://www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2004/2004.10.20.cpi.en.html as most corrupt governments.

I hope that your hope is not blind.

[Protostar]

We don't need the money.

Why do you keep saying this? It's the craziest thing I've ever heard in a long time. YOU may not need the money but the banks who loaned the money to these countries do.

I'm suggesting that basic humanitarian principles like empathy, respect for the dignity of others and a desire to see moral justice served are more becoming to all of us.

Yes because I can really take empathy down to a store and pay for things with it.

It's more than a gesture, it's a moral obligation, Naples. In my opinion, anyway. Wether it has an effect or not, wether it affects the world opinion about the West or not, it's something we gotta do.

Or we could do nothing. The US doesn't HAVE to do anything.
We could just give them empathy. Afterall, that's worth alot isn't it Hassan? It would also be more cost effective.

I say this process will happen again in 5 - 10 years. So much for helping the common folk.

Dont worry. It will and more money will be wasted on a lost cause.

[kneelbeforezod]

Protostar: Putting aside for a moment your inability to consider empathy and common human decency as being sufficient motivation for helping developing nations. Further putting aside the fact that your statements appear to be grounded in what could at best be described as a tenuous grasp of basic political, economic and business concepts. Can you not even attempt to recognize the element of enlightened self-interest?

Keeping large parts of the world ignorant, sick and poor will not be good for those of us who live in the developed world in the long run. If we do not help them, bad things will happen to us.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Protostar: Putting aside for a moment your inability to consider empathy and common human decency as being sufficient motivation for helping developing nations. Further putting aside the fact that your statements appear to be grounded in what could at best be described as a tenuous grasp of basic political, economic and business concepts. Can you not even attempt to recognize the element of enlightened self-interest?

Keeping large parts of the world ignorant, sick and poor will not be good for those of us who live in the developed world in the long run. If we do not help them, bad things will happen to us. Yes, I am sure you are right, but any person with half a brain knows you can't solve these issues simply by pouring money on them.

Most times when you subscribe to that method of problem solving you only exacerbate the problem, often exponentially.

[Protostar]

Further putting aside the fact that your statements appear to be grounded in what could at best be described as a tenuous grasp of basic political, economic and business concepts.

Please explain it to me, oh enlightened one.

Keeping large parts of the world ignorant, sick and poor will not be good for those of us who live in the developed world in the long run. If we do not help them, bad things will happen to us.

What bad things? How can they hurt us? It's sorta hard to
raise an army when half of your population is dying of AIDS.
And how long is the "long run". If by "long run" you mean shorter than 60 or 70 years (my estimated lifespan) then yes I am concerned. If it's any longer than that then I afraid it falls to the low end of the priority meter.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
You don't understand - I am completely selfish. Selfish is not the word. Anyone who advocates war yet expects someone else to die for him is a coward. Going to fight a war myself would be completely against my core principals. Well maybe you could call your old "principals" and ask them if they've changed their minds considering We're at War™. I'm not expecting you to get it. :D

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Selfish is not the word. Anyone who advocates war yet expects someone else to die for him is a coward. Well maybe you could call your old "principals" and ask them if they've changed their minds considering We're at War™. I'm not expecting you to get it. :D

People are going to die anyway, probably a lot less if we smack the dictators out.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

At times like this I ask myself 'What would Jesus do?'

He'd look at these developing nations, unable to build hospitals and schools in rural areas or treat or educate their citizens at risk from disease; He'd see them paying crippling interest on debts to nations where families drive three cars on beautiful highways, the state educates their kids and where you get your test results back within 48 hours. He'd consider the hopelessness of the former nations, desperately in need of some kind of radical assistance, and the comfort and ease of the latter nations, the income of whose banks exceeds the GNP of the countries whose poverty keeps them rich.

"Well, there's a financial principle at stake", He'd say, shaking His head. "They didn't have to take out those loans."

[Protostar]

At times like this I ask myself 'What would Jesus do?'

He'd look at these developing nations, unable to build hospitals and schools in rural areas or treat or educate their citizens at risk from disease; He'd see them paying crippling interest on debts to nations where families drive three cars on beautiful highways, the state educates their kids and where you get your test results back within 48 hours. He'd consider the hopelessness of the former nations, desperately in need of some kind of radical assistance, and the comfort and ease of the latter nations, the income of whose banks exceeds the GNP of the countries whose poverty keeps them rich.

"Well, there's a financial principle at stake", He'd say, shaking His head. "They didn't have to take out those loans."

I love how you make me out ot be the bad guy here. I'm just arguing on behalf of the banks and how it's unfair just to allow these countries to default on their loans. Why take a loan if you know you not going to be able to pay it back? These countries are poor because of their own choosing. I think that these countries should be made to continue paying on the loans no matter how long it takes. Afterall they did sign a legal agreement saying they would do so. I'm so, so sorry you do agree with me....wait...no I'm not.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
At times like this I ask myself 'What would Jesus do?'

He'd look at these developing nations, unable to build hospitals and schools in rural areas or treat or educate their citizens at risk from disease; He'd see them paying crippling interest on debts to nations where families drive three cars on beautiful highways, the state educates their kids and where you get your test results back within 48 hours. He'd consider the hopelessness of the former nations, desperately in need of some kind of radical assistance, and the comfort and ease of the latter nations, the income of whose banks exceeds the GNP of the countries whose poverty keeps them rich.

"Well, there's a financial principle at stake", He'd say, shaking His head. "They didn't have to take out those loans." No, he would go after those causing the suffering and making money off of the innocent much like at Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15, John 2:14,15, where he threw out the moneychangers.

In many of these countries you can't even help anyone till some cash is in an official's pocket.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Aww, poor you. Prostatestar, I'm sorry. You're only sticking up for the big guy's right to play golf. And I have to come along and make you feel all victimasisised.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
No, he would go after those causing the suffering and making money off of the innocent much like at Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15, John 2:14,15, where he threw out the moneychangers.

Exactly my point.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Exactly my point. You've lost it, because you are actually arguing FOR rewarding these countries for their mistakes and bad decisions.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You've lost it, because you are actually arguing FOR rewarding these countries for their mistakes and bad decisions.
Oh. My mistake. I was under the impression that when Jesus threw the moneylenders out he was angry that they were causing suffering and making money out of the innocent. I stand corrected.

He threw the moneylenders out because... they weren't thorough enough. Yes?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Oh. My mistake. I was under the impression that when Jesus threw the moneylenders out he was angry that they were causing suffering and making money out of the innocent. I stand corrected.

He threw the moneylenders out because they weren't thorough enough. I get it. :) OK, I can see a discussion with you is out of picture, so...

Carry on.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
OK, I can see a discussion with you is out of picture, so...

Carry on.
Aww. I was winning the argument as well.

[Protostar]

Aww, poor you. Prostatestar, I'm sorry. You're only sticking up for the big guy's right to play golf. And I have to come along and make you feel all victimasisised.

He has the right to play golf b/c he earned it as I will earn it through hard work and determination. That's what wrong with poor people, they're always looking for a handout. And socialists like you are right there ready to give it to them (using money you stole from the rich of course). I say quit loaning them money and giving them aid. That'll force them to solve their own problems on their own. That'll make them more self reliant rather than throwing money at them and allowing them to default on their loans.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Protostar
He has the right to play golf b/c he earned it as I will earn it through hard work and determination. That's what wrong with poor people, they're always looking for a handout. And socialists like you are right there ready to give it to them (using money you stole from the rich of course). I say quit loaning them money and giving them aid. That'll force them to solve their own problems on their own. That'll make them more self reliant rather than throwing money at them and allowing them to default on their loans.
Yeah! That'll learn 'em! They're going to turn financial theory on its head by becoming the first nations in history to develop competitive economies in the free market without any investment and from a starting position of no education and infrastructure - and without even being able to feed their poorest citizens!

Hells bells, we'll be doling out Nobel prizes from the same planes dropping grain in the famine zones before the decade's out!

I like your style. Radical.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

(It's normally at this point that people resort to ad hominem attacks or leave the thread claiming that reasonable discussion is impossible. I'm cool if you are.)

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Aww. I was winning the argument as well. With yourself perhaps...

:lol:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
(It's normally at this point that people resort to ad hominem attacks or leave the thread claiming that reasonable discussion is impossible. I'm cool if you are.) Go ahead. You know you wanna.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Go ahead. You know you wanna.
OK.

Hassan, you are a big-headed ten-times-tink-me-nice communist hatemonger bigggot Koffi-tickler. You Starlinist kulak-eaters want to bathe in the blood of decent rich folk and wont be happy until the last American is strangled with the guts of the last blue whale.

You make me puke, i have vomit on my keyboard.

Since reasonable discussion with you is impossible I am going to go to bed. I have betterer things to do then get all riled up with someone whose mum probably bought their computer with the proceeds of immoral earnings, and you are probably her pimp anyway, you socialistic bastardman.

[New]

I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys are argumenting against debt reduction for the poorest countries in the world!?!

amazing...

Oh... here are the right 18 countries...

Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia.

[Protostar]

OK.

Hassan, you are a big-headed ten-times-tink-me-nice communist hatemonger bigggot Koffi-tickler. You Starlinist kulak-eaters want to bathe in the blood of decent rich folk and wont be happy until the last American is strangled with the guts of the last blue whale.

You make me puke, i have vomit on my keyboard.

Since reasonable discussion with you is impossible I am going to go to bed. I have betterer things to do then get all riled up with someone whose mum probably bought their computer with the proceeds of immoral earnings, and you are probably her pimp anyway, you socialistic bastardman.

Man, that was brutal and uncalled for. But just like a liberal to throw names when they're backed into a corner. So far I've not heard one single arguement for relieving the debt other than "its a good thing to do." One guy tried to argue the point that it made more sense economically but provided no evidence to substantiate his claim. The only other thing this thread has been full of is petty namecalling, always by the same people who have no arguement. So in conclusion, yes Hassan this thread is done and you were owned.

[New]

Originally posted by Protostar
Man, that was brutal and uncalled for. But just like a liberal to throw names when they're backed into a corner. So far I've not heard one single arguement for relieving the debt other than "its a good thing to do." One guy tried to argue the point that it made more sense economically but provided no evidence to substantiate his claim. The only other thing this thread has been full of is petty namecalling, always by the same people who have no arguement. So in conclusion, yes Hassan this thread is done and you were owned.

Heh, from what I've read here. You've made yourself the big fool. That's how I see it anyway. Just implying that there are no good reasons makes you an ass. Start here. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=debt+relief&spell=1)

So far I've only seen Nazi's argument this way. But then I'm not American. There I mentioned the N word.

:no: :no: :no:

[kneelbeforezod]

One guy tried to argue the point that it made more sense economically but provided no evidence to substantiate his claim.

I guess your referring to me? I don't always have the time to hang around here all day, but will be happy to explain further now...

Poor nations cannot afford to buy the things we produce (some notable exceptions being weapons and - occasionally - pharmaceuticals). This means that we cannot make very much money selling things to them. Poor nations are generally also underdeveloped and do not produce very many things that we consider worth buying (some notable exceptions being heroin and cocaine). This limits our shopping options which means that the things we buy cost more. If the poor nations were less poor, they would be able to afford more of the things that we want to sell. If they become more developed they would be able to make more of the things that we might want to buy. This would mean that arms and drug dealers would no longer be the only ones able to profit. The quickest way for these poor nations to become less poor is for them to be able to spend what little money they do have on education, health and infrastructure instead of interest on loans.

There is a basic financial concept called Net Present Value (NPV). When evaluating a project, you look at all the costs that it will incur and all the benefits it will provide over its entire lifetime. You treat these costs and benefits as negative and positive cash flows and discount them to the present using the time value of money. If the number you are left with is greater than zero, you undertake the project.

The more poverty and political instability there is in the world, the more places there are for terrorists to come from. It doesn't take armies to hurt us. The cost - right now - of dropping the debt does not even come close to the long term benefits of increased stability throughout the world. The $40 billion that is being forgiven (by the collective G8) will do more for the future security of the world and the US than the $200+ billion spent in Iraq since the invasion.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by e1618978
People are going to die anyway, probably a lot less if we smack the dictators out. Lead the way and die like a man while "smacking" the dictators. In other words, be a man.

[Protostar]

Heh, from what I've read here. You've made yourself the big fool. That's how I see it anyway. Just implying that there are no good reasons makes you an ass. Start here.

So far I've only seen Nazi's argument this way. But then I'm not American. There I mentioned the N word.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh, God I'm a NAZI!! Give it a rest, it's not like I haven't heard that before.

Poor nations cannot afford to buy the things we produce (some notable exceptions being weapons and - occasionally - pharmaceuticals). This means that we cannot make very much money selling things to them. Poor nations are generally also underdeveloped and do not produce very many things that we consider worth buying (some notable exceptions being heroin and cocaine). This limits our shopping options which means that the things we buy cost more. If the poor nations were less poor, they would be able to afford more of the things that we want to sell. If they become more developed they would be able to make more of the things that we might want to buy. This would mean that arms and drug dealers would no longer be the only ones able to profit. The quickest way for these poor nations to become less poor is for them to be able to spend what little money they do have on education, health and infrastructure instead of interest on loans.

There is a basic financial concept called Net Present Value (NPV). When evaluating a project, you look at all the costs that it will incur and all the benefits it will provide over its entire lifetime. You treat these costs and benefits as negative and positive cash flows and discount them to the present using the time value of money. If the number you are left with is greater than zero, you undertake the project.

But you have to consider which industries are worth more? The arms or pharmaceutical industries? I believe the pharmaceutical industry is worth more but compare that against both the arms and banking industries (who make money off of the loans to these countries and the arms industries who make money selling weapons to them). There I believe they put together are worth more than the pharmaceutical industry so the loans should have stayed in place.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Lead the way and die like a man while "smacking" the dictators. In other words, be a man.

"Be a man" is propaganda to get the lower classes to fight, as a rich man I am immune.

What is good for the world, and what is good for an individual soldier are very different things. Clinton killed 800K in african genocide by his inaction, and lost Somolia because he was too wimpy. You end up with fewer dead if you invade (not fewer American dead, fewer humans dead).

I could just as easily say to you - if you don't want to invade Somolia (and are willing to let them die in the hundreds of thousands) in order to prevent the loss of american lives, then why don't you go move to Somolia (put yourself at risk - and put your money where your mouth is).

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Protostar
Man, that was brutal and uncalled for. But just like a liberal to throw names when they're backed into a corner. So far I've not heard one single arguement for relieving the debt other than "its a good thing to do."
It's a thing that good people should want to do.

[LiquidR]

I hate conservatives and liberals. It seems like a constant bickering about which side is evil. Wasted energy.

My question is when you leave this mud ball what will be your legacy? Some children that inherited just enough to be spoiled and too fucked up to make any real decisions on their own?

No wonder the wise men went into the wilderness, our civilization really hasn't got past the apes when it comes to emotional development. If you ask me not too far in the development of our brains either.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by Protostar
I believe the pharmaceutical industry is worth more but compare that against both the arms and banking industries (who make money off of the loans to these countries and the arms industries who make money selling weapons to them). There I believe they put together are worth more than the pharmaceutical industry so the loans should have stayed in place.

It was already obvious that you had no idea what you were talking about, but I didn't realize the extent of your cluelessness until this post. The debts being forgiven were to the African Development Bank, IMF and World Bank. The AFDB and World Bank will be compensated by the G8 and the IMF will take the hit.

If you honestly think that weapons proliferation in developing nations is a good thing (and thinking about this, I'm starting to have trouble believing that you are not just a troll) then there really is no hope of explaining things to you in a way that you might be able to comprehend.

[e1618978]

I hate conservatives and liberals. It seems like a constant bickering about which side is evil. Wasted energy.

My question is when you leave this mud ball what will be your legacy? Some children that inherited just enough to be spoiled and too fucked up to make any real decisions on their own?

No wonder the wise men went into the wilderness, our civilization really hasn't got past the apes when it comes to emotional development. If you ask me not too far in the development of our brains either.

Other than your apathy and bad mood, do you have a point?

[Gilsch]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by e1618978
If you want to discuss Somalia, at least learn how to spell the name of the country right. I'm guessing you heard about it on Limbaugh's show? :lol:

Edit: it wasn't worth it. :D

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gilsch
[QUOTE]Originally posted by e1618978
If you want to discuss Somalia, at least learn how to spell the name of the country right. I'm guessing you heard about it on Limbaugh's show? :lol:

Edit: it wasn't worth it. :D

I spell everything wrong, nothing against the Somalians (Somolians?) - and I don't watch Rush Limbaugh.

What I know about Somalia is from "Emergency Sex: Life in hell on Earth", which is a book about united nations aid workers.

The democrats, through their inaction, killed 10x as many people as Bush. If the democrats got elected again, they would be even worse - since anti-war is the new religion.

I have never voted republican, but I think that I will start in order to keep up the world policing. The world cannot afford to have the democrats pull us back to inaction.

[Protostar]

It's a thing that good people should want to do.

And who are you to define what a good person is?

No wonder the wise men went into the wilderness, our civilization really hasn't got past the apes when it comes to emotional development. If you ask me not too far in the development of our brains either.

Emotions are overrated (especially by females)

It was already obvious that you had no idea what you were talking about, but I didn't realize the extent of your cluelessness until this post. The debts being forgiven were to the African Development Bank, IMF and World Bank. The AFDB and World Bank will be compensated by the G8 and the IMF will take the hit.

I was speaking under the assumption that private banks had loaned these countries money. If you can find anything to contradict my belief then by all means do so. Even if these are the only institutions whose loans are being defaulted on it makes no sense because they're are just going to loan more money to them in the future. I wish the US would stop supporting the UN. They serve no purpose.

[kneelbeforezod]

I was speaking under the assumption that private banks had loaned these countries money.

Like I said: you were talking about something you knew nothing about.


If you can find anything to contradict my belief

http://news.google.com/news?num=50&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=ig&tab=wn&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=debt+imf+world+african+bank

[Gene Clean]

I can't believe people are wasting time discussing such complex issues with a guy who's not even out of high school yet.

Such people tend to confuse economics with banks' right to get their interest, and think the only threat to a nation could be a military.

Any discussion with people like this is futile.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Like I said: you were talking about something you knew nothing about.




http://news.google.com/news?num=50&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=ig&tab=wn&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=debt+imf+world+african+bank Funny enough the first article that comes up is this one:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44789

"- First, that $40 billion was squandered or stolen by the most corrupt regimes and biggest thieves in the Third World. The money is gone. We shall never see it again. And all the wastrels and crooks who got away with it will not be pursued.
- Second, the idiot-bankers at the IMF, World Bank and African Development Bank who failed to do due diligence when they made the $40 billion in loans, and lied about how good the loans were, will not be exposed and prosecuted, or tarred and feathered as they should.
- Third, the IMF, World Bank and African Development Bank will see all their lost funds replenished, so they can start flying around to those same exotic countries and capitals, shelling out new loans to the same crowd of crooks and incompetents, or their successors.
- Fourth, American taxpayers will have to pony up the cash for this historic bailout of the international banks.

Make no mistake. This not a bailout of Africa's poor or Latin American peasants. This is a bailout of the IMF, the World Bank and the African Development Bank. They will get the money to replace their lost loans. As in a Monopoly game where the rules are thrown out, they will be handed new money to play with. Bush and Blair are bailing out failed global institutions run by the highest-paid bureaucrats on earth."

:lol:

[NaplesX]

More from the article I quoted:

"What should have been done?

The IMF, World Bank and ADB should have been held to the same standards as any U.S. government bank that squandered capital entrusted to its care. Congressional auditors should have gone over their books, looked at the bad loans, looked at the backup provided and statements made at the time by lending officers, then let the American people know whether they had been faithful custodians of our tax dollars or clowns who ought not to be trusted with kids' lunch money. If the banks failed, they should be forced to undergo the same discipline and downsizing as any public bank that made similar unsecured loans and lost $40 billion.

At the least, we should shut down the World Bank-IMF country club in Montgomery County, Md. – and make them all travel coach.

But none of this is going to happen. All three of these institutions will soon be back at the same game, and their critics will be denounced as hard-hearted conservatives who lack compassion for the world's poor.

When an American worker has to take a hit for every foolish or failed investment in the family portfolio or 401K, why do international bankers and bureaucrats work with a safety net and always get a bailout? Why do they never have to answer or apologize for the follies they commit? By all means, give the African people debt relief. But why let the lenders who lied and lost the money off the hook?"

Truly brilliant.

[Protostar]

Wonderful. You may have proven me wrong on one account but you've simply given me more ammo with which to fight. That story shows the irresponsiblity of relieving the debt. Do you actually think it will help those people in those countries? No, this is a wasted humanitarian effort if that's indeed what it is. All that money gone for nothing. Like Naples said, this atrocity will reapeat itself in 5-10 years.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Funny enough the first article that comes up is this one:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44789

That's actually kind of weird. The first article I got was this:

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/548/548_03_G8.shtml


Buchanan makes some fair and valid points about corruption (although his notion that the American taxpayer is going to shoulder the burden is overstating things somewhat...the US is paying less than $2 billion of the ~$16 billion going to the World Bank and AFDB and will indirectly have already accounted for a similar cut of the hit to the IMF through past contributions). The Socialist Worker article also makes some fair and valid points too...

The thing is, there actually will be tangible benefits to the people in these countries. The benefits will not be as great as they should be, and will be disproportionately felt depending on the levels of corruption in the 18 nations' current governments. I believe that with a reasonable level of management, the benefits to these people - and to the rest of the world - will be worth more than $40 billion.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Protostar
Wonderful. You may have proven me wrong on one account but you've simply given me more ammo with which to fight. That story shows the irresponsiblity of relieving the debt. Do you actually think it will help those people in those countries? No, this is a wasted humanitarian effort if that's indeed what it is. All that money gone for nothing. Like Naples said, this atrocity will reapeat itself in 5-10 years. Don't worry, anyone with a brain understands by now these huge international bureaucracies are just there to take money from the US, and take advantage of the American's overwhelming generosity.

Who doesn't want to help the poor? The afflicted?

The answer is - no-one with even a smidge of compassion.

[New]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Don't worry, anyone with a brain understands by now these huge international bureaucracies are just there to take money from the US, and take advantage of the American's overwhelming generosity.

Who doesn't want to help the poor? The afflicted?

The answer is - no-one with even a smidge of compassion. Oh no! The two brainiest kids on the board have found each other... the evil international bureaucratic world is doomed...