[alex_holker]

Originally Posted by lighthouse

Sorry Alex but I disagree totally with you there. The financial institutions lend to people in the developed world who might very well have problems reinmbursing it! I see by you DOB that you're around 20ish and might well be still at home with your parents, be warned the world out there can be very harsh - and the financial one even more so!

It applies for both sides:

If some third-world country was incapable of repaying the money you were lending them, and doing so would just make a whole lot of do-gooders try to force you to just forget about getting your money back, would YOU give them the loan? Please, provide reasons why you would.

If you were leading a third-world country, and you were offered a loan which for some reason you were completely incapable of using to produce a net beneficial effect in your country, why would you accept the loan? Please, give reasons.

Alex

[dugq]

Originally Posted by DiSaidSo

Listen, poverty is a catalyst to some of the worst long term human disasters in the world. It causes famine, disease, wars. What really needs to happen is some sustainable development. Is cancelling their debt sustainable? Not in my opinion. Will it be like someone filing bankruptcy? Because from what I can tell, if you file bankruptcy, you have a hard time getting any loans for what... 7 years? What I'm trying to say is that if we cancel their debt, won't they just rack up more? Are we supposed to cancel it over and over again while our money flies out the proverbial window? Where does it end? I think we should take 1% of these rock stars' and movie stars' paychecks for their next project and send aid workers over there to guide these people in how to sustain their lives. Teach them to fish instead of buying them a fish, so to speak.

So you think the problem is that Africans don't know how to take care of themselves so that they need to be taught by the west?

The simple fact is that many of these countries don't have the money for sustainable development, largely because of debt repayments. For example, Zambia’s debt repayments to the IMF alone cost $25 million, more than the country’s education despite 40% of rural women being unable to read and write. Cameroon, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, Senegal, Uganda and Zambia all spent more on debt than health. And these countries are no closer to repaying this debt, Nigeria has been leant $17 billion, and has paid back $18 billion, yet still owes $34 billion. *

Under these circumstances sustainable development is nothing but a pipedream, and if you think that sending over some aid workers is going to solve the problem then you need a serious reality check. The West collects in debt repayments more than double the amount aid we give, so Western aid has to massively increase even to balance the books.

The current debt write off is not some blank cheque, it is dependent on the money going to areas where it is needed. Compare this to how we provide the debt, when the rich nations and financial institutions agree to lend money, little or no thought is given to whether the regimes are democratic, all they care about is financial bottom line. Then the West bemoans the lack of democratic government and blames it for poverty even though it is the West that has been funding those governments.

And, of course, then you have the hypocrisy of our trade rules. Both the EU and the US espouse the importance of free-trade, and yet US cotton subsidies, and the EU Common Agriculture Policy block African goods from being traded fairly. The WTO does nothing because the US and the EU have more political clout than Africa.

There will always be poverty. It's not a pretty thought, but I'm afraid it's true.

In the past 50 years, poverty has decreased in every continent apart from Africa. African poverty has increased to such an extent that global poverty overall has increased.

Other continents, Asia for example, have proven that poverty is beatable. We should not just ignore it, stick some dollars in a collection jar and say "well thats the way its always been" we should do something about it. And if that means that our own countries are temporarily worse off, so be it. If African poverty is beaten, the new markets for trade will, in the long term, benefit the west.

[alex_holker]

Originally Posted by dugq

And, of course, then you have the hypocrisy of our trade rules. Both the EU and the US espouse the importance of free-trade, and yet US cotton subsidies, and the EU Common Agriculture Policy block African goods from being traded fairly. The WTO does nothing because the US and the EU have more political clout than Africa.

The EU and US also use these methods against each other, and other western countries. I agree with you that this should stop, but it isn't limited to the EU and US vs. Africa.

Alex

[dugq]

Originally Posted by alex_holker

It applies for both sides:

If some third-world country was incapable of repaying the money you were lending them, and doing so would just make a whole lot of do-gooders try to force you to just forget about getting your money back, would YOU give them the loan? Please, provide reasons why you would.

Alex, you seem to misunderstand what debts we are talking about. These debts were leant by nation-states. You seem to be talking about private financial institutions, no-one is talking about writing off those debts, certainly not yet, at best the rich nations may take some of the financial burden.

Most of the money leant to Africa that we are discussing was leant during the Cold War and had had more to do with politics than economics, and was about supporting friendly regimes (though not necessarily democratic regimes)

Most new debt and aid supplied by the west is provided through schemes that don't simply hand over a big cheque to some tin-pot dictator (unlike the original debt), but are designed to ensure that the money goes where it is needed.

Originally Posted by alex_holker

If you were leading a third-world country, and you were offered a loan which for some reason you were completely incapable of using to produce a net beneficial effect in your country, why would you accept the loan? Please, give reasons.

Alex

Much of this money was leant to regimes who couldn't care less about the net benefit to their country and were more concerned with building a new palace. Yet it is the people of those countries who are suffering, not the leaders

Of course, no-one cared about this when lending the money, it only becomes a problem when we start talking about writing off the debt.

[dugq]

Originally Posted by alex_holker

The EU and US also use these methods against each other, and other western countries. I agree with you that this should stop, but it isn't limited to the EU and US vs. Africa.

Alex

I never said it was the West vs Africa, I don't suppose for one moment that the West is intentionally trying to make Africa poor.

However, my point is that the West must take some of the responsibilty for what is happening in Afirca.

Plus, Agricultural subsidies benefit a small amount of people in the West (how many people in the EU or the US still live off the land) yet they harm a massive amount of people in Africa. And the amount of harm they do to any individual is far greater in Afirca than in the West

[lighthouse]

I think the point of the exercise is to create a situation where developing world countries don't have to rely on loans in the first place - or at least not of the magnitude they have in the past. Remember that a lot of these were made long before the likes of Bono or Geldof began their campaigns. Once the debt no longer exists - or is conciderable reduced - the countries concerned are in a better position to develop their economies - which in turn reduces their dependancy on borrowed finance. It's creating self-determined peoples - not entire populations in hoc to the wealthier parts of the world, or permanently dependant on charity. Bruce Kent - when being in charge of CND UK said that his ultimate aim was to close the organisation because all it's objectives have been achieved - hopefully this should also be the goal of all the aid organisations.

[DiSaidSo]

Originally Posted by dugq

So you think the problem is that Africans don't know how to take care of themselves so that they need to be taught by the west?

Wow, what a loaded question that is... I really don't think I can answer that diplomatically, so I'll just go with what popped into my head first. I don't think Africans are incapable of taking care of themselves. And it's not even a matter of "knowing how" to take care of themselves. It's a matter of resources and opportunity. Being taught by "the west" wouldn't be the worst place to learn from, don't you think? I mean.... I think we've got it figured out pretty well. Do you really think African countries would turn that help down? Or should we just throw money at the problem and cross our fingers and hope that it works out?

The simple fact is that many of these countries don't have the money for sustainable development, largely because of debt repayments.

It's not so much about us evil "rich" countries wanting our money back. What about all the countries who have been faithful in their repayments but aren't destitute enough to qualify for this cancellation? They're basically being punished for doing the right thing. And I didn't say that the countries themselves should pay for sustainable development. Developed countries would send people to help (remember the 1% of the rock stars' salaries I proposed using?). It's like these countries have been crippled for so long and now they're trying to walk. People like me want to send people to teach them how to walk, while people like you just want to carry them.

Under these circumstances sustainable development is nothing but a pipedream, and if you think that sending over some aid workers is going to solve the problem then you need a serious reality check. The West collects in debt repayments more than double the amount aid we give, so Western aid has to massively increase even to balance the books.

Who is this mythical "West" that everyone keeps complaining about? USA and UK? Or is it more than that....

I didn't say that sending over some aid workers would solve all of the problems. But neither will cancelling their debt. Both ideas would set the wheels in motion. Which path the wheels go down is the difference. There is no one cause and there is no one solution to any social problem. My personal opinion is that we need to send over people instead of money to assess exactly what it is these people need. From what I can tell, they need medicine, basic health care, education, and jobs, but I can't really tell from way over here. Which is exactly why instead of cancelling their debt, we should assess their needs. Their REAL needs. Not their monetary needs. The US dwarfs all other nations in government and private aid, and apparently, the money isn't being used properly. Maybe we could use a different approach?

And, of course, then you have the hypocrisy of our trade rules. Both the EU and the US espouse the importance of free-trade, and yet US cotton subsidies, and the EU Common Agriculture Policy block African goods from being traded fairly. The WTO does nothing because the US and the EU have more political clout than Africa.

It's not "fair" the way Africa is treated? Please explain how the nations in Africa are treated differently than any other non "West" nation.

Other continents, Asia for example, have proven that poverty is beatable. We should not just ignore it, stick some dollars in a collection jar and say "well thats the way its always been" we should do something about it. And if that means that our own countries are temporarily worse off, so be it. If African poverty is beaten, the new markets for trade will, in the long term, benefit the west.

Did someone cancel the Asian nation's debt? Does the "West" like Asia better than Africa? Should the "West" be expected to fix all of the world's ills? Because from what I can tell, every time we try to make that happen, we're demonized for it. We've figured out how to build a prosperous country and now somehow, we're the bad guys.

Point of this thread: I don't see how a bunch of really really really rich rock stars getting together and singing some songs for us is supposed to change anything. Bring awareness? Well, I suppose, but it also draws a lot of criticism. I mean, if we're just going to throw money at this thing, maybe they can throw theirs.

Originally Posted by lighthouse

I think the point of the exercise is to create a situation where developing world countries don't have to rely on loans in the first place

[MSM Hobbes]

but... but... but... people!!!

Listen up, Pink Floyd, yea... PINK FLOYD is gonna be performing!!!






*Hobbes looks on travelocity & expedia for airfare & tix...*

[lighthouse]

Lol!

[Ciberblade]

"need"?

I suppose that depends on "who" we are talking about. In one of the posts earlier I read how the even though the US provides the largest dollar amount, it is a small percentage of it's GDP. But that figure only includes government contributions. It does not include all the private corporations that provide assistance. For instance, the medication used to treat AIDS is shipped over in bulk at no cost (although I suspect the cost is made up by the price we pay) There are also companies who have built laboratories and treatment centers just to hand over ownership and 'forgive' the debt (I believe that was Zambia).

Ultimately...the money is only going to help if used in two ways. First, continued treatment. And second, education. Knowledge of how the disease spreads, and more importantly, knowledge of the prevention methods.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by MSM Hobbes

but... but... but... people!!!

Listen up, Pink Floyd, yea... PINK FLOYD is gonna be performing!!!






*Hobbes looks on travelocity & expedia for airfare & tix...*

Hobbs...............My feelings exactly when I read that this AM in paper......first time since 1981 the REAL bunch together!

[lighthouse]

One thing that was pointed out on the radio the other day is that per unit developed world currency is worth infinately more than those of the developing world, and of course earnings are vastly different, so if your average income is £200 per year (as in some countries) a debt cancellation of several billion is going to have a hugely positive effect!

[ashes@work]

Originally Posted by MSM Hobbes

but... but... but... people!!!

Listen up, Pink Floyd, yea... PINK FLOYD is gonna be performing!!!






*Hobbes looks on travelocity & expedia for airfare & tix...*

thats friggin awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MSM Hobbes]

Awesome in that (a) Mr. Floyd is playing a set at this event, or (b) Mr. Hobbers is contemplating the wild thought of taking a virgin trip across the pond?

[dugq]

Originally Posted by DiSaidSo

Wow, what a loaded question that is... I really don't think I can answer that diplomatically, so I'll just go with what popped into my head first. I don't think Africans are incapable of taking care of themselves. And it's not even a matter of "knowing how" to take care of themselves. It's a matter of resources and opportunity. Being taught by "the west" wouldn't be the worst place to learn from, don't you think? I mean.... I think we've got it figured out pretty well. Do you really think African countries would turn that help down? Or should we just throw money at the problem and cross our fingers and hope that it works out?

I'm sorry Di, but you seem to be completely out of touch with the reality of the situation. Africa has the resources, what it doesn't have is the opportunity, because we won't give it to them. Whatever money they make we insist should be paid to us rather than on their own people's health or education, and we refuse to let them exploit many of their natural resources because of our protectionist trade policies.

It's not so much about us evil "rich" countries wanting our money back. What about all the countries who have been faithful in their repayments but aren't destitute enough to qualify for this cancellation? They're basically being punished for doing the right thing.

How is anyone being punished? Am I being punished because some homeless guy gets a free bowl of soup while I have to cook and pay for my own food. The idea that the 18 poorest nations are somehow the "winners" is so ludicrous its almost scary.

And please, don't pretend that the reason the west is resistant to debt cancellation isn't because they want their money back, but has to do with some idea of fair-play, thats just plain silly.

And I didn't say that the countries themselves should pay for sustainable development. Developed countries would send people to help (remember the 1% of the rock stars' salaries I proposed using?). It's like these countries have been crippled for so long and now they're trying to walk. People like me want to send people to teach them how to walk, while people like you just want to carry them.

Thats completely unrealistic. Are you proposing we tax some rock stars and use that money to send some people to africa? Do you really think that going to make the slightest difference.

By the way, you may not be aware but there are actually some aid workers in Africa already, quite a few actually.

Who is this mythical "West" that everyone keeps complaining about? USA and UK? Or is it more than that....

USA, Cananda, EU, Aus and a few others.

I didn't say that sending over some aid workers would solve all of the problems. But neither will cancelling their debt. Both ideas would set the wheels in motion. Which path the wheels go down is the difference. There is no one cause and there is no one solution to any social problem. My personal opinion is that we need to send over people instead of money to assess exactly what it is these people need. From what I can tell, they need medicine, basic health care, education, and jobs, but I can't really tell from way over here.

Di, we know their needs, and they are exactly the same as the needs you listed. We don't need to send people over there. The problem is that these nations can't pay for these things themselves because of the amount of money they give to us in debt repayment. At the moment we have a ludicrous system whereby the africans pay us money in debt repayment, then we spend aid on providing them with things which they would have been perfectly able to provide for themselves if it wasn't for us insisting on the debt repayments. We are the ones forcing these people into charity.

Which is exactly why instead of cancelling their debt, we should assess their needs. Their REAL needs. Not their monetary needs. The US dwarfs all other nations in government and private aid, and apparently, the money isn't being used properly. Maybe we could use a different approach?

Don't you think thats a bit odd, you have problems with cancelling debt becaise the money isn't being used properly, yet you don't seems particularly concerned with the fact that the West leant them all this money in the first place which was then wasted.

As I mentioned before, much of this debt is from the Cold War, when the priority for aid and loans wasn't "how will they use this money to better their country" but "they're not a commie, so give them lots of cash". The regimes at the time were quite happy to take whatever money was thrown at them, especially since most of them were highly undemocratic.

Since the Cold War the West has tended to use the money more wisely, see the IFF scheme for example. The fact is that these constant claims you hear of "the money gets wasted" are largely old news, a leftover from the day when our leaders couldn't care less whether the money was used properly, just as long at the nation in question stayed friendly.

Western aid is getting to where it is needed, but how can it do any good when African countries give us back twice us much in debt repayments. This is a simple question of maths

It's not "fair" the way Africa is treated? Please explain how the nations in Africa are treated differently than any other non "West" nation.

Because the US and EU subsidise agricultural products so that they can compete against other nations agricultural products.

Of course, this effects other countries, but specifically developing coutries since it is developing countries that tend to be agricultural. Plus, if the the EU has a trade dispute with the US, or vice versa, the EU can threaten to raise duties on US goods or take other actions. African nations can make no such threats, and are not given much of a voice in the WTO, so are effectively powerless

Did someone cancel the Asian nation's debt? Does the "West" like Asia better than Africa? Should the "West" be expected to fix all of the world's ills? Because from what I can tell, every time we try to make that happen, we're demonized for it. We've figured out how to build a prosperous country and now somehow, we're the bad guys.

The asian countries I would point to as overcoming poverty were never in the kind of debt that african countries are now. Overcoming poverty when you aren't lumbered with mountains of debt is possible. Overcoming poverty when you cannot invest any money you make because you have to give it to someone else is impossible.

I really don't think you appreciate the problem. There is no way for these countries to get themselves out of poverty because whatever money they make cannot be invested in their education, health, infratructure or anything else, because they have to give it to us. That isn't going to change by taxing rockstars or by sending some aid workers. it will only change if those nations are given a clean slate, if they are given the opportunity to trade fairly and then use that money to invest in their own countries. if that doesn't happen nothing will change, they will stay poor, and we will continue to give them aid .

Point of this thread: I don't see how a bunch of really really really rich rock stars getting together and singing some songs for us is supposed to change anything. Bring awareness? Well, I suppose, but it also draws a lot of criticism. I mean, if we're just going to throw money at this thing, maybe they can throw theirs.

What makes you think they're not giving their own money.