Printable View
Should these debt's be forgotten.
Many countries are growing CASH crops to pay off their debt and because of that they have no land to grow food and their people are starving.
Is this right.
Obviously each case has to be considered individually but is it right to suck countries dry at the expence of their people?
Some sites on the subject
A New Approach to Third World Debt
Third World Debt: Why Should People Care?
Third World Debt Crisis
Neil
If you lend money, then you expect to be repaid.
HOWEVER:
Lending money is at a Lenders own risk....If a country cannot pay back the loan, then its tough on the lender, IMO...Feeding your people (and other things) should come before re-paying debt.
This is as true to consumers as to the 3rd world.
If you borrow money and then lose the capacity to pay back in the UK, then reputable a company will bend over backwards to help you..eg freezing interest, with a nominal payment for a period of time as an acknowledgment of the debt...its good business practice.
I fail to see how keeping a Country poor, is good business practice for a bank...especially the World Bank.
Well Rat Faced if you keep them poor there always in need of money so new loans are made and the country pays interest forever.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@24 July 2003 - 16:37
I fail to see how keeping a Country poor, is good business practice for a bank...especially the World Bank.
If you write off the debt then most countries can now support themselves so no more interest.
And that's not good business.
Keep the junkie hooked and you got a cash cow for life.
Neil
RF
National debt is in no way analogous to personal debt. It simply doesn't work that way.
Sorry to say it but your argument is specious.
Neil
Your argument doesn't even reach specious. It is just naive.
How can you say that most countries can now support themselves.
Jpaul,
I know..
However, if you can think of a better example, then please post it.
I'm terribly sorry to invoke your nit pickingQuote:
Originally posted by JPaul@24 July 2003 - 23:34
Neil
Your argument doesn't even reach specious. It is just naive.
How can you say that most countries can now support themselves.
I meant "then support themselves"
JPaul ,
Could you do me a faviour and think before you type.
It would make a refreshing change.
Neil
I think he wasn't nitpicking, but rather disputing your claim that most countries could support themselves.
Ok let's say they can't and I have said that alreadyQuote:
Originally posted by ilw@25 July 2003 - 14:20
I think he wasn't nitpicking, but rather disputing your claim that most countries could support themselves.
What I meant is they will have a much better chance if we stop screwing them for billions
sorry you only see this point not the big picture
Neil
Hi,
Neil, u should start reading books by the actual leaders of the World Bank and IMF. they is some good stuff out there now, as people cannot hide the governments blood trail.
Its kinda funny though, because more than half of them leave their jobs because of these 'programmes' and loans..its not allowed to come on TV though, as if ure an american, everything u view has to be approved by pentagon etc. (democracy??!!)
Wat we have to know, is that when the IMF, or world bank lays out a plan for a country, it has certain sanctions put on it....it is not allowed to spend more than a certain amount of hygiene, education, trasport etc etc...these are all factors, whiich help in the construction of a stable country.
J Stglitz, worked at the bank, he was president.
He has a nobel peace prize.
HE ADMITS THAT IT ISNT THEM WHO MAKE THE DECISIONS, BUT THE ORDER COMES FROM HIGHER ABOVE.Thats why people are leaving instutions like the UN now. (UN built on Rockafella land )
How about this, any half educated people answer me this question..
How many of the so-called Under-developed countries have actually become developed by the IMF< and world Bank?
In the bank managers own words, 'None'!
These instutions are here to serve a purpose to some groups of people.....
These are called the elite, from bush to the queen (both blood related to each other!)
THEIR IS UNDER 1 BILLION PEOPLE CONTROLLING ALL THE WEALTH AND RESOURCES OF THIS PLANET.
And dont forget, with institutions like the UN, and world Bank etc....they have been able to kill people without a single bullet being fired...
Between 1991, and the new gulf war, the Americans, through the UN, had killed over 1million Iraqis.
They never stopped firing on Iraq for one day, since the gulf war, whereas the media never told you this.
The only time the US government had enough with Saddam was when he told them to 'fukc off' with their oil contract, and he said he was gonna shop around for better prices. Do you know what else he done, he made free education for his people, making them all (5% literate, one of the highest figures in the Arab world...
you know what else he done? He gave them all free health care (something the americans cant even get!!!)
MAn, he helped his people, rather than helping the oil companies from the west, so it was time for war.
dont forget, do the math, the gassing of the Kurds did not provoke any type of Western media AT THE TIME>>>>
the weaponary was supplied by US, and UK.
The only time it is being mentioned if like 20years after it happened. When it suits the spin doctors, and can be used as an advantage media term.
ALWAYS FIND OUT FROM EDUCATED PEOPLE, WHO WILL HAVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW.
Listening to the guy on TV, is not good enough, because no facts will be presented....
As J Stiglitz says:-
over a million had to die for indonesia to become the IMF's 'model student' in the developing world....
a society of globiliastion to benefit a few, not the population....
Peace,
W_M_D
I'm terribly sorry to invoke your nit pickingQuote:
Originally posted by Neil__+25 July 2003 - 14:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Neil__ @ 25 July 2003 - 14:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@24 July 2003 - 23:34
Neil
Your argument doesn't even reach specious. It is just naive.
How can you say that most countries can now support themselves.
I meant "then support themselves"
JPaul ,
Could you do me a faviour and think before you type.
It would make a refreshing change.
Neil [/b][/quote]
You accuse me of nit picking.
What you "meant" was totally different from what you actually said. If you post that they can support themselves, that is what people will respond to.
Oh and you do me a favour. Spell check before you post. Then you won't come across as a semi-literate.
That would be a seriously refreshing change.
Neil,
these countries can support themselves....
problem is
THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO>......
its the debt part that allows the Western world to impose its rules of development, globilization, and slave labour on the poor sides of the world....
THIS IS HOW THE WEST IS GETTING RICHER
Thats what the worlds leading economists are angry about....
But thats not allowed to be seen on TV, as it wont benefit you ( you meaning 'the elite')
I would rather believe a leading economist for the world bank , than some guy who cant even give you evidence....on Fox, cnn etc.
you can chat to Stiglitz, such a nice man, who wants to help humanity....he will inform you of a whole lot of other stuff.
Its these economists, who have spent their whole lives, devoted to finding solutions to the problems of world hunger, and debt, that are speaking out now..
When they cannot directly impose the rules the see fit to help the world, then what are they working for? A hidden agenda, says stiglitz.
Quote:
THEIR IS UNDER 1 BILLION PEOPLE CONTROLLING ALL THE WEALTH AND RESOURCES OF THIS PLANET.
1 in 4 on the planet are part of the control of wealth and resources.
Thats not bad, considering the conservative estimate in a developed country is 5% controlling 90%....
I think you should re-look at your figures, and who you class as educated though...