I don't see the profit. Because there is none to be seen. Not with the information on hand. Unless your an unthinking knee jerk anti-US bigot.
So you don't see how banks make money from loans? Moron. I am with Zaphod on this one. Yes, there is profit to be made...no, I'm not sure if in this particular case it's a bad thing.
So you don't see how banks make money from loans? Moron. I am with Zaphod on this one. Yes, there is profit to be made...no, I'm not sure if in this particular case it's a bad thing.
Prove to me the banks are making money on it. What bank? What profit and how much would they make normally had they not loaned it to Iraq?
What profit and how much would they make normally had they not loaned it to Iraq?
that's a good point. is this loan to Iraq on some kind of exceptional terms or right along what they would have made loaning the money to someone else?
I told you that banks make money on loans. You don't understand how that works?
Unless this is an interest free loan to Iraq, whoever loans Iraq this money will make a profit. Failure to acknowledge that is willful stupidity. Again, I have not decided whether I think this kind of profit is right or wrong. However, it is stupid to contest that it doesn't exist.
Again, I have not decided whether I think this kind of profit is right or wrong. However, it is stupid to contest that it doesn't exist.
It isn't necessarily wrong, but it should be 100% Iraq's decision. No, not some mayor of Bhagdad the U.S. propped up for two weeks, but a decision by Iraq none the less.
I'm sure there are lots of banks willing to loan money, and many companies within and outside of Iraq willing to do reconstruction. It's not the U.S.' call.
Besides that, the interest on bank loans undermines the pre-war argument that no money is to be made by going to war with Iraq.
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
So instead of a secured loan, Iraq should get the money how?
What do you mean it's their call? The decision actually would be up to the lender. They're the ones with the money. Securing the loan with oil seems to me to be a pretty safe way to ensure favorable terms. If you don't do it that way, what do you do instead? $30B is a lot of money.
I mean, it's up to Iraq on who they go through and how much they get. And what currency the loan is in and what currency the oil is backed by. It's their call, not any U.S. administration.
This thread is the ultimate in anti-american stupidity. No one can provide any facts or figures but we are to take is as given that the US is going to "profit" from these loans. Please pull your heads out of your collective asses.
groverat, the same questions could be asked of the $30 Billion (thousand million.) It's an irrelevant post. Who is getting the loan now? What are they going to do with it? Answer those questions and it might shed light on what you're asking, but is still irrelevant to this thread.
The loan would be given to American companies to rebuild Iraq and Iraq's oil would guarantee its repayment. They are going to use it to build things in Iraq.
Hence the use of the term "rebuilding".
Quote:
US calls for debt forgiveness of old debt. US assumes control of new debt. That's good economics for the US.
And for Iraq.
$120 billion in debt to Europe for deals with Saddam is worse than $30 billion in debt to the US for deals that rebuild their country.
Quote:
And for those of you who claimed there was no money to be made by going to war in Iraq, groverat is proving you wrong.
There is money to be made in everything. That's what you get with a globalized economy.
Quote:
I haven't made any claims on necessity of the money. It probably is to some extent. What does that have to do with the thread? Nothing? Oh, thanks.
Money has nothing to do with a thread about profits and loans? Fascinating.
----
Harald:
Quote:
Yeh, nowhere does it say that the US has dibs on the oil. Not even in my mail, nor did I suggest it.
Oh really?
The oil that comes out belongs to the US economy until the loan is paid back.
You didn't just say that?
Quote:
May I ask, if not oil, which exports you think will be used to pay the loan back in dollars? Camel shit? Sand?
Oil is guaranteeing the loan (which in itself is merely a rumor at this point), yes, but that in no way means Iraqi will have no oil to control until it is paid off. You are being a drama queen.
Quote:
So you're suggesting that Saddam single-handedly ran Iraqi oil?
The Ba'ath party did, which was controlled by Saddam. The men we hunted and killed and captured.
Quote:
Next: I don't give a monkeys how good the US is at rebuilding things the US bombed to pieces: to suggest that Iraq is somehow incapable of doing it itself is classic imperial bullshit.
The UN (Gulf War 1 & economic sanctions) is responsible for the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure. The Horrible Unilateral War of Unilateralism did very very little damage to economic infrastructure.
But those are facts... ugly truths that get in the way of simplistic generalizations.
Quote:
If that money went to Iraqi construction companies, who could then hire Halliburton themselves for all I care, the dividend it would have for the local economy would be enormous.
What Iraqi construction companies? You are displaying glaring ignorance of Iraq's very recent economic makeup.
Quote:
The plain fact is that you don't understand economics, even though it's gratifying you've stopped pretending that there's there's not much evidence as you did above.
You seem to think Iraq has a bustling manufacturing economy just waiting to be employed.
Quote:
Where's Jay Garner? Uh, at home probably. Pretty sad you have to use a blindingly obvious fact unrelated to the force of my argument to hide your total lack of blah blah blah don't know why I bother with you.
Am I the one who brought that up? Be mad at yourself for not knowing what you're talking about, not me for pointing it out.
This thread is the ultimate in anti-american stupidity. No one can provide any facts or figures but we are to take is as given that the US is going to "profit" from these loans. Please pull your heads out of your collective asses.
I'm not sure where I stand on this particular issue, but Scott, you're being a dolt by saying that there won't be any profit made by the lenders. There is profit to be made, you need to admit that. Until then, you're the one with your head up your ass.
groverat, you're really stretching things. You're obviously avoiding the topic at hand; just trolling. You're not very good at the socratic method yet. Keep trying, keep learning. Stay in school.
Am I ignoring the debt forgiveness? No. It's not related to the profits the U.S. is going to take from the new debt they create.
Would they get better terms from someone else? It's their job to shop around, not ours to force the debt down their throats for our own economic interests.
Who would the loans go to and what would they do with it? It could go to the interim government and they could start the rebuilding process.
There is money to be made in everything? Not when forced by my government, or any government for that matter. You can't hide behind 'global economics' as a justification for war or theft.
Money has nothing to do with a thread about profits and loans? I never said that. It's another attempt at a 'smoke screen' from your trolling groverat. I said the necessity of the loans has nothing to do with the thread. You're pretending like I said something else because my arguments have left you with no rebuttal. You brought up the necessity of the loans, I claim that's not an issue. If they are necessary, Iraq should decide where they come from and the terms they agree to. If they're not necessary, the U.S. shouldn't be giving them out in the first place. Either instance supports my cause. That's why it's not relevant to the thread.
Wow. You're grasping at straws groverat. Just admit that those claiming that profit couldn't be a motivation for war were wrong.
start with the supposed "profit" you keep referring to here.
then subtract the cost of the war.
let me know what number you get.
Did Halliburton (for example. substitute any of the many private companies that will be involved with this) pay for the war? No. So that's $0. Looks like they're still ahead.
So, the American people pay for this war and private corps get rich off it. Seems like a good deal for the veep and his friends....
i think the problem is that it depends on how you look at it. it is a negative sum total, but there are groups that will make money out of this whole deal.
just seems like an insane risk to start a war with a nation, piss off the world, and extraordinary legal risks all for a few billion dollars that would easily be awarded via your regular pork channels in the govt.
Again, do you think that the private companies funded the war? And if they did, it was at a loss (perhaps for humanitarian reasons??? )?
What a great idea. Have the tanks painted with "This war is brought to you by Phillip Morris" and the grenades that hit the wedding parties in Afghanistan "This missile was broght to you by Coca-Cola".
One thing is for sure. If anyone the american people should pay for the war. They voted for it when they put GWB in the White House. The iraqis are not allowed to vote in presidental elections.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
I don't see the profit. Because there is none to be seen. Not with the information on hand. Unless your an unthinking knee jerk anti-US bigot.
So you don't see how banks make money from loans? Moron. I am with Zaphod on this one. Yes, there is profit to be made...no, I'm not sure if in this particular case it's a bad thing.
Originally posted by BR
So you don't see how banks make money from loans? Moron. I am with Zaphod on this one. Yes, there is profit to be made...no, I'm not sure if in this particular case it's a bad thing.
Prove to me the banks are making money on it. What bank? What profit and how much would they make normally had they not loaned it to Iraq?
Until you can you and bunge are the morons.
What profit and how much would they make normally had they not loaned it to Iraq?
that's a good point. is this loan to Iraq on some kind of exceptional terms or right along what they would have made loaning the money to someone else?
Originally posted by Scott
Prove to me the banks are making money on it.
I told you that banks make money on loans. You don't understand how that works?
Unless this is an interest free loan to Iraq, whoever loans Iraq this money will make a profit. Failure to acknowledge that is willful stupidity. Again, I have not decided whether I think this kind of profit is right or wrong. However, it is stupid to contest that it doesn't exist.
Originally posted by BR
Again, I have not decided whether I think this kind of profit is right or wrong. However, it is stupid to contest that it doesn't exist.
It isn't necessarily wrong, but it should be 100% Iraq's decision. No, not some mayor of Bhagdad the U.S. propped up for two weeks, but a decision by Iraq none the less.
I'm sure there are lots of banks willing to loan money, and many companies within and outside of Iraq willing to do reconstruction. It's not the U.S.' call.
Besides that, the interest on bank loans undermines the pre-war argument that no money is to be made by going to war with Iraq.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
So instead of a secured loan, Iraq should get the money how?
It's their call.
Originally posted by bunge
It's their call.
What do you mean it's their call? The decision actually would be up to the lender. They're the ones with the money. Securing the loan with oil seems to me to be a pretty safe way to ensure favorable terms. If you don't do it that way, what do you do instead? $30B is a lot of money.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
What do you mean it's their call?
I mean, it's up to Iraq on who they go through and how much they get. And what currency the loan is in and what currency the oil is backed by. It's their call, not any U.S. administration.
groverat, the same questions could be asked of the $30 Billion (thousand million.) It's an irrelevant post. Who is getting the loan now? What are they going to do with it? Answer those questions and it might shed light on what you're asking, but is still irrelevant to this thread.
The loan would be given to American companies to rebuild Iraq and Iraq's oil would guarantee its repayment. They are going to use it to build things in Iraq.
Hence the use of the term "rebuilding".
US calls for debt forgiveness of old debt. US assumes control of new debt. That's good economics for the US.
And for Iraq.
$120 billion in debt to Europe for deals with Saddam is worse than $30 billion in debt to the US for deals that rebuild their country.
And for those of you who claimed there was no money to be made by going to war in Iraq, groverat is proving you wrong.
There is money to be made in everything. That's what you get with a globalized economy.
I haven't made any claims on necessity of the money. It probably is to some extent. What does that have to do with the thread? Nothing? Oh, thanks.
Money has nothing to do with a thread about profits and loans? Fascinating.
----
Harald:
Yeh, nowhere does it say that the US has dibs on the oil. Not even in my mail, nor did I suggest it.
Oh really?
The oil that comes out belongs to the US economy until the loan is paid back.
You didn't just say that?
May I ask, if not oil, which exports you think will be used to pay the loan back in dollars? Camel shit? Sand?
Oil is guaranteeing the loan (which in itself is merely a rumor at this point), yes, but that in no way means Iraqi will have no oil to control until it is paid off. You are being a drama queen.
So you're suggesting that Saddam single-handedly ran Iraqi oil?
The Ba'ath party did, which was controlled by Saddam. The men we hunted and killed and captured.
Next: I don't give a monkeys how good the US is at rebuilding things the US bombed to pieces: to suggest that Iraq is somehow incapable of doing it itself is classic imperial bullshit.
The UN (Gulf War 1 & economic sanctions) is responsible for the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure. The Horrible Unilateral War of Unilateralism did very very little damage to economic infrastructure.
But those are facts... ugly truths that get in the way of simplistic generalizations.
If that money went to Iraqi construction companies, who could then hire Halliburton themselves for all I care, the dividend it would have for the local economy would be enormous.
What Iraqi construction companies? You are displaying glaring ignorance of Iraq's very recent economic makeup.
The plain fact is that you don't understand economics, even though it's gratifying you've stopped pretending that there's there's not much evidence as you did above.
You seem to think Iraq has a bustling manufacturing economy just waiting to be employed.
Where's Jay Garner? Uh, at home probably. Pretty sad you have to use a blindingly obvious fact unrelated to the force of my argument to hide your total lack of blah blah blah don't know why I bother with you.
Am I the one who brought that up? Be mad at yourself for not knowing what you're talking about, not me for pointing it out.
Originally posted by Scott
This thread is the ultimate in anti-american stupidity. No one can provide any facts or figures but we are to take is as given that the US is going to "profit" from these loans. Please pull your heads out of your collective asses.
I'm not sure where I stand on this particular issue, but Scott, you're being a dolt by saying that there won't be any profit made by the lenders. There is profit to be made, you need to admit that. Until then, you're the one with your head up your ass.
Originally posted by groverat
....
groverat, you're really stretching things. You're obviously avoiding the topic at hand; just trolling. You're not very good at the socratic method yet. Keep trying, keep learning. Stay in school.
Am I ignoring the debt forgiveness? No. It's not related to the profits the U.S. is going to take from the new debt they create.
Would they get better terms from someone else? It's their job to shop around, not ours to force the debt down their throats for our own economic interests.
Who would the loans go to and what would they do with it? It could go to the interim government and they could start the rebuilding process.
There is money to be made in everything? Not when forced by my government, or any government for that matter. You can't hide behind 'global economics' as a justification for war or theft.
Money has nothing to do with a thread about profits and loans? I never said that. It's another attempt at a 'smoke screen' from your trolling groverat. I said the necessity of the loans has nothing to do with the thread. You're pretending like I said something else because my arguments have left you with no rebuttal. You brought up the necessity of the loans, I claim that's not an issue. If they are necessary, Iraq should decide where they come from and the terms they agree to. If they're not necessary, the U.S. shouldn't be giving them out in the first place. Either instance supports my cause. That's why it's not relevant to the thread.
Wow. You're grasping at straws groverat. Just admit that those claiming that profit couldn't be a motivation for war were wrong.
Just admit that those claiming that profit couldn't be a motivation for war were wrong.
just for kicks can you do me a quick favor bunge?
can you do a little math for me.
start with the supposed "profit" you keep referring to here.
then subtract the cost of the war.
let me know what number you get.
Originally posted by alcimedes
just for kicks can you do me a quick favor bunge?
can you do a little math for me.
start with the supposed "profit" you keep referring to here.
then subtract the cost of the war.
let me know what number you get.
Did Halliburton (for example. substitute any of the many private companies that will be involved with this) pay for the war? No. So that's $0. Looks like they're still ahead.
So, the American people pay for this war and private corps get rich off it.
Originally posted by alcimedes
just for kicks can you do me a quick favor bunge?
...
let me know what number you get.
i think the problem is that it depends on how you look at it. it is a negative sum total, but there are groups that will make money out of this whole deal.
Originally posted by alcimedes
sure, but you really think that they're willing to spend 200+ billion dollars to make maybe 3-5 billion back? (assuming 10% - 15% profit margins)
Again, do you think that the private companies funded the war? And if they did, it was at a loss (perhaps for humanitarian reasons???
Originally posted by torifile
Again, do you think that the private companies funded the war? And if they did, it was at a loss (perhaps for humanitarian reasons???
What a great idea. Have the tanks painted with "This war is brought to you by Phillip Morris" and the grenades that hit the wedding parties in Afghanistan "This missile was broght to you by Coca-Cola".
One thing is for sure. If anyone the american people should pay for the war. They voted for it when they put GWB in the White House. The iraqis are not allowed to vote in presidental elections.
Do I sound bitter today?