The U.S. and other lenders knew full well that their loans were personal bribes to Mobutu. They knew the Congolese people never consented or received benefits. Indeed, in 1978 the IMF appointed its own man-German banker Erwin Blumenthal-to run Congo's central bank. After two years he resigned with a scathing report, saying there was "no chance, I repeat no chance, that [Congo's] creditors will ever recover their loans."
Sozobe
Todays New York Times article
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/international/12debt.html
Finance Chief Cancel Debts of 18 Nations
By ALAN COWELL
The world's wealthiest nations formally agreed today to cancel at least $40 billion worth of debt owed by the world's poorest nations
Brahmin, I do not know where you are posting from, but you should note that one of the countries receiving debt relief is Bolivia. I have a bit of experience there and most of Bolivias debt problems can be laid squarely at the door of the US.
[
"Over all, international lenders are owed some $55.6 billion, Mr. Brown said."
Cancelling $40 billion of this debt would hardly seem to be a "drop in the bucket."
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:[
"Over all, international lenders are owed some $55.6 billion, Mr. Brown said."
Cancelling $40 billion of this debt would hardly seem to be a "drop in the bucket."
Finn, the complete paragraph give a more accurate accounting of what the debt relief is costing the donor nations in cash
Mr. Brown said the agreement on Saturday would immediately affect some $40 billion in debt, including servicing costs. But the amount it will actually cost the Group of 8 to compensate the international lenders is $16.7 billion - a calculation based on the payments the international lenders would have expected to receive from 18 debt countries between now and 2015, the officials said.
Why do you and others (like Sozobe, and parados) feel so compelled to challenge brahmin's praise for the US?
Interesting.
According to this article:
"Over all, international lenders are owed some $55.6 billion, Mr. Brown said."
Cancelling $40 billion of this debt would hardly seem to be a "drop in the bucket."
I used Bolivia as an example because I have direct experience with that nation, and our actions in that nation do not refect well on us. Bolivia had a long history of Spanish colonial occupation and it has suffered greatly from that occupation. But the policy of the US in the last 50 years has propped up a post colonial elite of European anestory governing a nation that is almost 80 precent native American, mostly Amyra and Inca, and living in abject poverty. I was in apparel factories where the top wage was 37 cents an hour, and those were the good jobs. Most people earned much less. I was in houses and lived in neighborhoods that were indistinguishable from my home state of Connecticut. And then I would go up to places like el Alto where the streets were dirt and the sewerage ran down a trench on the side. The entire national debt of Bolivia could have been covered by the personal fortune of Lazada , the US puppet they threw out a year and a half ago, so this is not costing the US much and even this may be too late. Speaking only for Bolivia the debt service was eating up badly need capital to invest in needed infrastructure and services The political situation in Bolivia is getting worse by the day.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Why do you and others (like Sozobe, and parados) feel so compelled to challenge brahmin's praise for the US?
Why do you like blind praise that has no basis in facts? I don't mind praise that is truthful. Yes, the US gives a large amount in foreign aid. As the overall amount given in the world the US gives the most. But you have to temper it with the reality of how large the US is in terms of population and GDP. We give but often not as much as others do.
Do you really mean to suggest that brahmin's praise has no basis in fact?
Why is it necessary to "temper" it? How is it a problem to praise the US for its generosity without pointing out that it may not be the most generous of nations?
And while we are on the subject, do you feel it is inappropriate to factor in the cost of America's defense of the Free World?
The US is responsible for approximately 50% of the worlds military spending. It would be foolish to suggest that this expenditure is not thought to be in the best interest of the US, but it would also be foolish not to recognize that America has assumed a large share of the burden of the cost to defend the Free World. Should we get no credit for this?
Quote:Interesting.
According to this article:
"Over all, international lenders are owed some $55.6 billion, Mr. Brown said."
Cancelling $40 billion of this debt would hardly seem to be a "drop in the bucket."
The lenders are owed 55.6 billion by those countries. Some of the debt is to lending organizations. Some to the IMF which would cancel the debt without being repaid.
$55 billion is a drop in the bucket of the worldwide lending and in the worldwide economy. Just compare it to US economy of $12 trillion, the European economy of roughly $11 trillion and the US govt expenditure of 180 billion for Iraq invasion. Simply compare it to the money the US govt has borrowed which is almost $8 trillion. The US govt borrowed 24 billion from June 1 til the 9th this year.
And 3 million years is far less of a time period than 3 billion years.
If the debt of these nations amounts to $55.6 billion than clearly forgiveness amounting to $40 billion, is significant, irrespective of what the US may spend on Iraq or toothpicks.
When I give a panhandler a ten dollar bill I am giving him a tiny fraction of my personal wealth. Never-the-less he is happy. Should I be giving him a third of my wealth?
Whatever aid the US may dispense, it is all coming out of the taxpayers' pockets. It is not as if Bush & Co have some great stash of dough that they've amassed through exploitation of the 3rd World Nations. When you insist that the US spend more, you are insisting that you and I spend more, or are you OK with reducing domestic spending so that we can increase foreign aid, or do you want to pay even even greater share of your personal wealth to the government?
Yes, it is insignificant in comparison to what the US and other nations take out of these countries in resource extraction, particularly Bolivia where this is an emotional political topic at the moments.
I have to leave but I hope we can continue this conversation.
Finn, I was saying two separate things:
1.) Debt reduction = sounds great! Might be drawbacks I'm not aware of, but from what I'm aware of -- cool!
2.) Addressing brahmin's dismissal of the debt reduction on the part of everyone but the US. The stuff he was saying about the Netherlands et al just didn't sound correct to me, but I wasn't in the mood to look it up. Parados came through with what I was thinking of.
parados wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Why do you and others (like Sozobe, and parados) feel so compelled to challenge brahmin's praise for the US?
Why do you like blind praise that has no basis in facts? I don't mind praise that is truthful. Yes, the US gives a large amount in foreign aid. As the overall amount given in the world the US gives the most. But you have to temper it with the reality of how large the US is in terms of population and GDP. We give but often not as much as others do.
Do you really mean to suggest that brahmin's praise has no basis in fact?
Why is it necessary to "temper" it? How is it a problem to praise the US for its generosity without pointing out that it may not be the most generous of nations?
And while we are on the subject, do you feel it is inappropriate to factor in the cost of America's defense of the Free World?
The US is responsible for approximately 50% of the worlds military spending. It would be foolish to suggest that this expenditure is not thought to be in the best interest of the US, but it would also be foolish not to recognize that America has assumed a large share of the burden of the cost to defend the Free World. Should we get no credit for this?[/color]
Quote:Interesting.
According to this article:
"Over all, international lenders are owed some $55.6 billion, Mr. Brown said."
Cancelling $40 billion of this debt would hardly seem to be a "drop in the bucket."
The lenders are owed 55.6 billion by those countries. Some of the debt is to lending organizations. Some to the IMF which would cancel the debt without being repaid.
$55 billion is a drop in the bucket of the worldwide lending and in the worldwide economy. Just compare it to US economy of $12 trillion, the European economy of roughly $11 trillion and the US govt expenditure of 180 billion for Iraq invasion. Simply compare it to the money the US govt has borrowed which is almost $8 trillion. The US govt borrowed 24 billion from June 1 til the 9th this year.
And 3 million years is far less of a time period than 3 billion years.
If the debt of these nations amounts to $55.6 billion than clearly forgiveness amounting to $40 billion, is significant, irrespective of what the US may spend on Iraq or toothpicks.
When I give a panhandler a ten dollar bill I am giving him a tiny fraction of my personal wealth. Never-the-less he is happy. Should I be giving him a third of my wealth?
Whatever aid the US may dispense, it is all coming out of the taxpayers' pockets. It is not as if Bush & Co have some great stash of dough that they've amassed through exploitation of the 3rd World Nations. When you insist that the US spend more, you are insisting that you and I spend more, or are you OK with reducing domestic spending so that we can increase foreign aid, or do you want to pay even even greater share of your personal wealth to the government?
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:[/color]parados wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Why do you and others (like Sozobe, and parados) feel so compelled to challenge brahmin's praise for the US?
Why do you like blind praise that has no basis in facts? I don't mind praise that is truthful. Yes, the US gives a large amount in foreign aid. As the overall amount given in the world the US gives the most. But you have to temper it with the reality of how large the US is in terms of population and GDP. We give but often not as much as others do.
Do you really mean to suggest that brahmin's praise has no basis in fact?
Why is it necessary to "temper" it? How is it a problem to praise the US for its generosity without pointing out that it may not be the most generous of nations?
Go read Brahmin's comments before you make a fool of yourself. He made several statement that were not factual. If you really want to defend unfactual statements that is your perogative but don't expect the rest of to go along with you.
This response is a non-sequitur. You made the claim that we must temper our praise of the US with an appreciation of the size of its economy. Again, I ask you why?
Why does it get under your skin so that someone might praise the US?
When someone writes a check to the United Way, do you insist upon comparing the amount of that check to the individual's personal wealth?
Brahmin may or may not have made statements that were not factual, but if you were actually concerned with the veracity of his comments, as opposed to simply being irked by reading something positive about the US, it's unlikely you would have responded with:
"Don't worry Brahmin, the US helped the Congo just fine. It is rumored the first elected leader of Congo was killed with CIA help in 1965 when Mobuto took power and ruled for 32 years. The US govt was more than happy to support Mobuto during the cold war."
Aside from the point that it is interesting that one would use rumor to support a challenge of someone else's facts, the sneering tone of this comment makes it pretty clear from where your ire actually spews: The US is not deserving of praise because of their rumored past sins.
Quote:I never said a word about it and had no need to. I dealt with Brahmin's comment that the Congo was the result of Belgium and that the Netherlands didn't give any aid for Tsunami victims.
And while we are on the subject, do you feel it is inappropriate to factor in the cost of America's defense of the Free World?
No, you didn't say a word about the cost to America of defending the Free World. Instead you have made several allegations that the US is penurious when it comes to foreign aid and particularly so in light of the contributions of such nations as Holland.
I am glad to see that the Dutch contribute more per capita in foreign aide than do we. I appreciate their generosity. I also appreciate that they spend, comparatively, nothing on the defense of their nation, instead relying on the US for that protection.
I am not such a jingoist that I insist that we outperform all the nations of the world in each and every category.
We defend the Free World and we contribute to foreign aid. If the Dutch, the Japanese, the Norwegians, and others pick up some of the slack for us when it comes to foreign aid, that seems a fair sharing of burdens among allies.
Quote:I don't see what that has to do with Tsunami relief of the Netherlands.The US is responsible for approximately 50% of the worlds military spending. It would be foolish to suggest that this expenditure is not thought to be in the best interest of the US, but it would also be foolish not to recognize that America has assumed a large share of the burden of the cost to defend the Free World. Should we get no credit for this?[/color]
Quote:
Quote:Interesting.
According to this article:
"Over all, international lenders are owed some $55.6 billion, Mr. Brown said."
Cancelling $40 billion of this debt would hardly seem to be a "drop in the bucket."
The lenders are owed 55.6 billion by those countries. Some of the debt is to lending organizations. Some to the IMF which would cancel the debt without being repaid.
$55 billion is a drop in the bucket of the worldwide lending and in the worldwide economy. Just compare it to US economy of $12 trillion, the European economy of roughly $11 trillion and the US govt expenditure of 180 billion for Iraq invasion. Simply compare it to the money the US govt has borrowed which is almost $8 trillion. The US govt borrowed 24 billion from June 1 til the 9th this year.
And 3 million years is far less of a time period than 3 billion years.
If the debt of these nations amounts to $55.6 billion than clearly forgiveness amounting to $40 billion, is significant, irrespective of what the US may spend on Iraq or toothpicks.
When I give a panhandler a ten dollar bill I am giving him a tiny fraction of my personal wealth. Never-the-less he is happy. Should I be giving him a third of my wealth?
Whatever aid the US may dispense, it is all coming out of the taxpayers' pockets. It is not as if Bush & Co have some great stash of dough that they've amassed through exploitation of the 3rd World Nations. When you insist that the US spend more, you are insisting that you and I spend more, or are you OK with reducing domestic spending so that we can increase foreign aid, or do you want to pay even even greater share of your personal wealth to the government?
Talk about a rant that has little basis in much reality. First of all the US is not the only debtor nation that is forgiving debt.
Actually none of the debtor nations are forgiving debt, but that it is not the only creditor nation forgiving debt is immaterial to the question of whether or not its generosity is praiseworthy. Other nations are joining the US in forgiving the debt of the these debtor nations. By your own calculations, the cost to the US will be about one half of what it is to all the debt forgivers, and while this in no way minimizes the contributions of the other nations, it certainly doesn't support the notion of America the Stingy.
Then as was pointed out here earlier the actual pricetag is 16 billion of which the US probably will pay less than half. $8 billion out of the US treasury over how many years? I haven't looked to see if it will all be paid in one year or over the time frame until 2015. Either way it doesn't make much difference. My cost for the debt relief if it is paid in one year is $21. If it is over the next 10 years it costs me $2 a year. A drop in the bucket of my tax bill. It is a lot less than I have paid for the fiasco in Iraq. As I pointed out in my earlier statement the government borrowed 22 BILLION from June 1 til June 9th of this year. That is costing me MORE than the debt relief to those 18 nations.
There are any number of endeavors that cost you more than the debt relief to these 18 nations. You may consider the funds spent on Iraq to be unwarranted, but, once again, how do such expenditures devalue the generosity of the US toward the debtor nations? Because the US has prosecuted a war with which you do not agree, are all of its other actions suspect or inadequate?
Who is insisting you "spend more"?
It follows that if you believe that the US is not spending its "fair share" on foreign aid, and that this is a negative trend to be corrected, then you are insisting that I spend more on foreign aid, because whatever the US spends on foreign aid, I contribute through my taxes.
Bush & co have cost you more in interest payments per year than any debt relief to poor countries ever will. The war in Iraq has cost 180 billion which at the 5% 10 year bond rate runs the US 9 billion a year in interest alone and we will be paying that off for the next 30 years or more based on present Bush projections of government revenues. It is costing me $24 a year just to pay the interest on the war in Iraq let alone the ongoing costs that will continue to drive that up.
Once again, how is this relevant?
I tell you what. You can pay my share of the Iraqi war and I will gladly pay your share of debt relief. That will make us both happier not having to pay for things we don't want.
I tell you what, send me your real name and address and I will be happy to send you a check for $24. I don't need you to pick up my share of the debt relief, because I have no problem with it. Find evidence that I do not want the US to participate in the debt relief, and I will double the amount on the check I send you.
40 billion is a significant part of 56 billion but it is meaningless to compare those numbers. That is like saying the $22 it is going to cost me for debt relief is significant because I make $30 an hour. $40 billion is not a significant part of debt owed around the world or of the world's GDP. It is those 2 items that are dealing with that $40 billion or in this case it is actually 16.7 billion. The $40 billion in no way relates to 1/3 of your wealth being given to poor nations.
Are you now trying to argue that all debt throughout the world should be forgiven?
If $56 billion is the total debt of the 18 nations in question, then any effort to reduce this debt by $40 billion, or 71%, is pretty significant no matter what the actual cost over time may be.
You keep trying to relate the amount contributed by the US (and by extension the other creditor nations) towards debt relief with the entire economy of the world. This is a ridiculous.
What , in your opinion, is the magic number? What percentage of a nation's GDP should it be spent in assisting other nations, and if it is not met, how does that minimize the contributions it does make?[/[/color]quote]
Why do you and others (like Sozobe, and parados) feel so compelled to challenge brahmin's praise for the US?
No, you didn't say a word about the cost to America of defending the Free World. Instead you have made several allegations that the US is penurious when it comes to foreign aid and particularly so in light of the contributions of such nations as Holland.
I am not such a jingoist that I insist that we outperform all the nations of the world in each and every category.
Actually none of the debtor nations are forgiving debt, but that it is not the only creditor nation forgiving debt is immaterial to the question of whether or not its generosity is praiseworthy. Other nations are joining the US in forgiving the debt of the these debtor nations. By your own calculations, the cost to the US will be about one half of what it is to all the debt forgivers, and while this in no way minimizes the contributions of the other nations, it certainly doesn't support the notion of America the Stingy.
It follows that if you believe that the US is not spending its "fair share" on foreign aid, and that this is a negative trend to be corrected, then you are insisting that I spend more on foreign aid, because whatever the US spends on foreign aid, I contribute through my taxes.
Finn,
This all started with your claim that I challenged Brahmin's praise of the US. Yours would be the non-sequitor. I pointed out that Brahmin's statements about Congo and the Netherlands were unfactual. I found a source that Belgium had made reparations to Congo but couldn't verify it with a second source so didn't post it.
Since you felt you had to attack me for not supporting the US I felt I should respond. Brahmin was the one that compared the US to the rest of the world. I pointed out that his basis of comparison was faulty since he claimed the rest of the world had done little compared to the US. We have to temper it in comparison because we have to have a basis to compare like Brahmin was doing. I never once said we shouldn't praise the US. I only pointed out HOW it should be compared since the comparison was made BEFORE I responded. Now you want to ignore the fact that comparisons were made so you get to attack me. Well. Fine. Be that way. Your argument is nothing but babbling since it ignores the comparison that my original statements were made in response to.
As for my "sneering tone"? Go read the article I took the information from. It is OBVIOUS you didn't bother but just jumped all over me. You are the only one with a "sneering tone" here as evidenced by this statement.Quote:Why do you and others (like Sozobe, and parados) feel so compelled to challenge brahmin's praise for the US?
Please find any instance where I challenged Brahmin's praise of the US before you made that statement.
Quote:Really? Where did I make any comment about US foreign aid as a whole? I never did. I only commented on 2 things. US debt relief and US aid for Tsunami victims. You are the one that seems to think that those 2 items are the sum total of US aid. I never said any such thing.No, you didn't say a word about the cost to America of defending the Free World. Instead you have made several allegations that the US is penurious when it comes to foreign aid and particularly so in light of the contributions of such nations as Holland.
Quote:It appears your "jingoism" is to put words in my mouth and then call me on what you think I should have said instead of what I really said.I am not such a jingoist that I insist that we outperform all the nations of the world in each and every category.
Quote:I don't recall once referring to the US as stingy when it came to debt relief. That is your made up term for what you wanted to argue about. (I mispoke on "creditor" vs debtor. People do that. No need to be condescending with your sneering tone.)Actually none of the debtor nations are forgiving debt, but that it is not the only creditor nation forgiving debt is immaterial to the question of whether or not its generosity is praiseworthy. Other nations are joining the US in forgiving the debt of the these debtor nations. By your own calculations, the cost to the US will be about one half of what it is to all the debt forgivers, and while this in no way minimizes the contributions of the other nations, it certainly doesn't support the notion of America the Stingy.
Quote:No such thing follows. You are the one that claimed you felt you had to give 1/3 of your money to a poor person. I only asked you a question. I never said you needed to give that much. In fact I pointed out that it isn't even close to your claim.It follows that if you believe that the US is not spending its "fair share" on foreign aid, and that this is a negative trend to be corrected, then you are insisting that I spend more on foreign aid, because whatever the US spends on foreign aid, I contribute through my taxes.
ok.
but still dont get the countries who lived off the asses and mineral resources of these very same african nations, off the hook one bit.
plus poverty begets poverty and a bad govt situation. i mean if these countries hadn't been colonised, squeezed dry and then left to their fates (often after one last parting shot, sort of "finish with a flourish", as the belgians did in the congo), then they would not have slipped into the abysmal depths of mis-governance that they have today.
