ForumGarden

The world`s richest countries have reached a compromise agreement on relieving some of the poorest countries of their burden of debt.

any views on this? I mean, won`t it deter further investment, if first world countries think they may eventually have to write off their losses?

And what about the money that has been squandered by despotic tyrants?

[/FONT] :-3 :-3 :-3

john8pies wrote: The world`s richest countries have reached a compromise agreement on relieving some of the poorest countries of their burden of debt.

any views on this? I mean, won`t it deter further investment, if first world countries think they may eventually have to write off their losses?

And what about the money that has been squandered by despotic tyrants?

[/FONT] :-3 :-3 :-3


Your Prime Minister on his latest meeting with President Bush at the White House tried unsuccessfully to obtain a committment from the U.S. that we would go along with yet another round of 'debt forgiving' to some African nations.

While he was very conscious of the fact that Blair has made this his latest crusade and was counting on support, the White House was unable to commit more than a token amount in contribution.

The reasons for this were made clear by the President who felt that another round of 'carte blanche' donations would do little to alleviate the poverty problem without a parrellel committment by those nations who were to receive the aid that it would go straight to those who it was meant to help.

Future aid by the United States to any country is dependant upon clear and effective monitoring that the aid package in question is being used effectively.

On the other hand if banks lend money to corrupt dictators who are subsequently overthrown why should the people be liable for debts they did not occur?

We have a farcical situation where many in the west give money in aid while the countries concerned are paying back interest on huge debts incurred by now defunct governments, which if they didn't have to pay they would have the money to finance the kind of programmes that the aid is used for. To get the loans they have to pay outstanding debts which means they have to find some way of paying the interest so social programmes like educatuion and health go by the board. Effectively all the aid given generously by people round the world is enabling companies to pay back debt by financing things that governments should be.

Bush has a good point but begs the question why were these corrupt politiciuans lent money in the first place and it's only now people are asking where the money has been going, it's not as though it wasn't hard to work out so why was a blind eye turned. Also, is it just that those who suffered under those regimes should also now be liable for their their debts?

Haven't a clue who this site belongs to but thought it was of relavance.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/ ... ndebt.html

As your link correctly states, gmc, the third world debt is really a debt owed to the central banks via the middleman countries like the US that, in effect, have no real part to play other than the appearance of being the lender nation. And like all money, it is really created from nothing and backed by nothing, and thus can be written off in much the same way, as a book entry.

The root problem, again, which this link mentions elsewhere, I believe, is the private central banks having control of the world's creation and issuance of money, lent to the very same countries at interest! It is the world's biggest scam and conspiracy, and has been going since 1913 in the US with the 'Federal' Reserve, and much longer in Europe with the Bank of 'England'.

Hold on a minute, if the banks are writing off the debts and the banks make their profits from their customers and the banks are using part of their profits to write off these debts, doesn`t that actually mean that (once again) Joe Muggins Public is paying for the writing off of these debts (whilst politicians and the banks themselves naturally take the credit). perhaps the likes of Sting, Bono and Macca could have set the ball rolling by paying a £20million each towards the costs, rather than letting (relatively) poorer bank customers bear the costs?!

john8pies wrote: Hold on a minute, if the banks are writing off the debts and the banks make their profits from their customers and the banks are using part of their profits to write off these debts, doesn`t that actually mean that (once again) Joe Muggins Public is paying for the writing off of these debts (whilst politicians and the banks themselves naturally take the credit). perhaps the likes of Sting, Bono and Macca could have set the ball rolling by paying a £20million each towards the costs, rather than letting (relatively) poorer bank customers bear the costs?!
J.Public ALWAYS pays, no matter who it APPEARS to be done by... :-5

Since the federal gov't insists on being a charity, can I now count my taxes as a charitable contribution, and thus tax-deductible????