debt cancellation

[Diff-chan]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...ica/index.html

Okay, Im not against the idea of these shithole nations being relieved of the debt they owe the IMF and World Bank. If anything, it should shut up the idiotic anti-trade protestors that plague the first-world nations.

But is this gonna do anything? These countries get a lot of aid and it doesnt go anywhere but the corrupt ruler's pockets. If they have reformed okay but if not then this isnt gonna help anyone and in fact may hurt people (especially if, as in the past, the corrupt rulers use the money to buy weapons to subjugate and defeat the populace).

Also, there is no proof anywhere that increased foreign aid (and debt cancellation is foreign aid) actually helps the countries rise from poverty. The Asian Tiger nations (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc., generally considered the model of economic growth) grew from desperate poverty to abundant wealth in a matter of decades but it wasnt because of foreign aid.

One particular poignant piece I read in the Economist article last year said that the best way to get these countries to prosper is for the government to fully protect and enforce property rights. A lot of these poor countries have a mess of bureacracy and corruption that makes it nearly impossible for someone to own land, or start a business. Also, tribal chiefs and shit take matters into their own hands. This lowers the incentive for people to properly till their land, or make sure the business they are in prospers. This drags down the economy. I agree with this theory on a lot of points - the Constitution and Bill of Rights were documents that were designed to give the government property-law enforcement territory, and look at how that benefitted the country...

Hmm.

[voltz]

I've seen no improvement with the war we caused in Iraq, let alone Afghanistan which we've spent god knows how much to make up for the damages we made.

I'm thinking we should've waited until we had the terrorist situation settled with before we even considered any serious spending.

[piku]

I agree with just about everything diff posted. I believe these debt cancellations are hinged on the fact that these countries have proven they are capable of running themselves, as I think that was one of Bush's primary concerns.

Which frankly I'm glad they are, I am much more accepting to giving away so much money knowing that they aren't going to shitholes which have a new dictator every month.

[Diff-chan]

I've seen no improvement with the war we caused in Iraq, let alone Afghanistan which we've spent god knows how much to make up for the damages we made.

I'm thinking we should've waited until we had the terrorist situation settled with before we even considered any serious spending.

Iraq and Afghanistan doesnt have anything to do with this, Noam. Nothing at all.

I agree with just about everything diff posted. I believe these debt cancellations are hinged on the fact that these countries have proven they are capable of running themselves, as I think that was one of Bush's primary concerns.

Here's the list: Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. Are these countries still mired in corruption and instability? I dunno.

[voltz]

Iraq and Afghanistan doesnt have anything to do with this, Noam. Nothing at all.

You're talking about aiding countries in poverty right? Cause that's about the only reason I posted.

[piku]

Here's the list: Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. Are these countries still mired in corruption and instability? I dunno.

I honestly have no clue either, but my guess is that the only reason they are on the list is because they have stable governments. Here is a paragraph from the NY Times article:

Neither the Bush administration nor the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, which has pushed the hardest for debt relief among the leaders of the rich industrial powers, has ceded the moral high ground to their critics. Mr. Bush said this week that poor countries trying to improve their governments "shouldn't be burdened by mountains of debt," making it clear that corrupt and incompetent countries were ineligible.

And from a very brief CBC News article:

The countries involved have already met strict targets of good governance. Another 20 countries could eventually be eligible for debt relief under the plan, making it worth more than $55 billion.

[voltz]

I'm wondering how china is able to gain cheap imports considering they've been warned to crack down on piracy.

[Yoshi]

You're talking about aiding countries in poverty right? Cause that's about the only reason I posted.

No, you posted because you saw an opportunity to spew liberal bullshit in an unrelated thread.

I'm wondering how china is able to gain cheap imports considering they've been warned to crack down on piracy.

What the fuck does piracy have to do with this? You think piracy is a major driver of China's economy?

[Calliander]

Isn't this old news? It's good news, I guess, but I don't know if cancelling their debts is going to help. Maybe lowering them?

[Diff-chan]

Stricer enforcement of copyright can only benefit China - it kinda ties in to what I said above about countries you know, protecting property rights.