NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/mdgs_price061204.htm

IYO, Should the G8 cancel the debt?
If yes, what can be done to put pressure on governments?
What do you think should be done to tackle poverty in the world?

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/mdgs_price061204.htm

IYO, Should the G8 cancel the debt?
If yes, what can be done to put pressure on governments?
What do you think should be done to tackle poverty in the world?
Yes, it would do more to end poverty, starvation and war than any other single act. How to get them to do it? Buggered if I know. :headbang:

Yes, it would do more to end poverty, starvation and war than any other single act. How to get them to do it? Buggered if I know. :headbang:
Point out to them that it also costs them more than they can make out of it, because the debt can never be repaid. At least Britain's coming round to the idea. Not sure who else has been leading the field on this one - can someone enlighten me?

Well, cancellation of Third World debt would stimulate economic growth, thus increasing their energy consumption and consequently, global energy demand. This would reduce the quantity of oil and natural gas available for export within producing countries, and place more pressure on the relatively flat global production level, leading to shortages and sharp price increases.

As harsh as it sounds, it is in the West's interests to maintain the majority of the world as a source for the resources it needs, minimising the amount of internal consumption in producing countries. This is best done by impeding development.

Not that I am in support of such a policy, but this is how it works, and we do benefit from it a great deal.

Well, cancellation of Third World debt would stimulate economic growth, thus increasing their energy consumption and consequently, global energy demand. This would reduce the quantity of oil and natural gas available for export within producing countries, and place more pressure on the relatively flat global production level, leading to shortages and sharp price increases.

As harsh as it sounds, it is in the West's interests to maintain the majority of the world as a source for the resources it needs, minimising the amount of internal consumption in producing countries. This is best done by impeding development.

Not that I am in support of such a policy, but this is how it works, and we do benefit from it a great deal.

That would be indirectly a good thing, forcing western nations to focus more heavily on renewable energy.

That would be indirectly a good thing, forcing western nations to focus more heavily on renewable energy.
Ah, but that is a more difficult choice. It is quite inconvenient for any establishment to radically depart from policies it has been pursuing, in the case of the European powers, for centuries.

It also keeps them dependant and compliant - a major political factor that should not be overlooked. I see your point about resources but many developing nations are beginning to leapfrog stages - for example straight to wireless phones and networks as that is cheaper than building a telephone line network. With the additional wealth that would be freed up you could equally argue that it would encourage a boom in high tech (and also green) technologies. These are nations that would jump at the chance to avoid being reliant on high cost fuels such as oil and gas.

Ah, but that is a more difficult choice. It is quite inconvenient for any establishment to radically depart from policies it has been pursuing, in the case of the European powers, for centuries.

Of course, but really, its only about as likely to happen as the elimination of Third World debt :p

Ah, but that is a more difficult choice. It is quite inconvenient for any establishment to radically depart from policies it has been pursuing, in the case of the European powers, for centuries.
True. I blame democracy. No one could make those kinds of changes and stay in power.

'Cancelling' is the wrong word to use. The debts aren't 'cancelled', they are paid off by the tax-payers of the 'cancelling' nation.

Tactical Grace got it right. We should maintain the developing world as an energy source, but in return provide them with the means to live free from famine. If this means enforcing the distribution of aid, then so be it. Is it our job to police the world? In my view no, but we are doing so currently, and if we're going to do something we do it properly.

True. I blame democracy. No one could make those kinds of changes and stay in power.
Human nature being what it is, few benevolent dictators stay as such for long. Everyone succumbs to temptation in the end...

"Wow, now with this power I can make the world of my countrymen a better place! Well, tomorrow. Let's celebrate a little first. Hehehe, this is so cool. I'm liking this. I'm liking this a lot. Heeheehee...hahaha...mwahahahaHA!!!"

'Cancelling' is the wrong word to use. The debts aren't 'cancelled', they are paid off by the tax-payers of the 'cancelling' nation.

Tactical Grace got it right. We should maintain the developing world as an energy source, but in return provide them with the means to live free from famine. If this means enforcing the distribution of aid, then so be it. Is it our job to police the world? In my view no, but we are doing so currently, and if we're going to do something we do it properly.
If we cancelled their debts they would be having fewer wars as they would not be trying to get access to resources to sell to us and then you wouldn't have to be world policeman and we'd all be happier.

Human nature being what it is, few benevolent dictators stay as such for long. Everyone succumbs to temptation in the end...

"Wow, now with this power I can make the world of my countrymen a better place! Well, tomorrow. Let's celebrate a little first. Hehehe, this is so cool. I'm liking this. I'm liking this a lot. Heeheehee...hahaha...mwahahahaHA!!!"
True. Just saying Democracy's not perfect.
Tactical Grace got it right. We should maintain the developing world as an energy source, but in return provide them with the means to live free from famine. If this means enforcing the distribution of aid, then so be it. Is it our job to police the world? In my view no, but we are doing so currently, and if we're going to do something we do it properly.
Um, that's a pretty scary view to take. If they're constantly in debt they can never develop. Oh no, wait, that's what you're proposing!

I can't even be bothered to rant with this one.

If we cancelled their debts they would be having fewer wars as they would not be trying to get access to resources to sell to us and then you wouldn't have to be world policeman and we'd all be happier.
Yeah, except then we'd see reductions in resource flows to us.

See, this is why I have a kind of dilemma on my hands. On the one hand, my soft compassionate side says that exporting demand destruction via fascism, starvation and disease is kinda harsh. But then the rational energy industry side of me points out that the civilisation we have built up requires these conditions to function.

Trying to reconcile the two is tricky.

Yeah, except then we'd see reductions in resource flows to us
we have already outsourced most of our manufacturing in from the UK to countries where the resources are (cheaper production costs) and switched to high tech, service and added value industries. Thats why we are not in recesion while the US and EU are hovering on the edge of it. You don't need to compete for resources if you make better use of them. The US consumes about a quarter of the world's resources because it tolerates inefficiency and waste that most economies would find ludicrously expensive to put up with.

True, but that kind of outsourcing also renders one very vulnerable. When a country has outgrown its energy and agricultural base and outsourced all heavy industry, it is left with no primary or secondary economic activities. A country based entirely around service industries looks good on paper, environmentally and ethically, but the reality is that all you have is a shell. If things go wrong and those resource streams are severed, or the service industry goes into recession...

This is why the maintenance of inefficient industries, through subsidies, protectionist regulations, etc can make good sense from a national security standpoint, even while being completely idiotic from a free market perspective. I agree it is very wasteful having backups, but then it is in large part the free market's attacks on energy system redundancy that has caused many high profile power system failures recently.

I suppose my discomfort with trade liberalisation stems from an increasingly "old-fashioned" view that a country should aim to be self-sufficient in as many areas as possible. This current trend to entire nations declaring that they will close their heavy industry and pay someone else to take care of it somewhere else, it undermines that whole concept. The world's increasing interconnectedness could end up being the downfall of many a nation.

I have exactly the same idea that an economy ought to be built on actually making something. I have to admit though that the UK economy does seem to be doing OK despite this as do the high tech driven economies of scandinavia. Whether thats because not many others have done it so we have little competition or whether it is a right time right place thing, or whether it is actually a viable model, I think is still a matter of debate. But it could be a way out...

There's an old saying that's quite relevant here:
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.
Foreign aid is the worst evil that has ever been perpetrated on the third world--forgiving the debts makes it doubly so. If they're ever going to progress they've got to learn that they have to be able to be self-sufficient, either by producing everything they need or producing a few things that everyone else is willing to trade for. And they've got to learn that they are accountable for their actions, including any loans they accept. There's no other way. If they have to learn it the hard way, so be it. It's what they get for their rejection of reality and basic economics.

There's an old saying that's quite relevant here:
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.
I guess the modern version goes:
Give the man a net and teach him to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime. But you retain ownership of the net and the bulk of the fish caught, indefinitely. Attempt at renegotiation of contract a capital offence.

It won't matter if you cancel the debt. They'll borrow the same and more in the next few years.

If you cancel the debt, and you really want it to work, then stop loaning them money after the cancel.

If you want to see a nation go into a tailspin, prevent them from borrowing money. It's an incredible economic sanction.

It won't matter if you cancel the debt. They'll borrow the same and more in the next few years.

If you cancel the debt, and you really want it to work, then stop loaning them money after the cancel.

If you want to see a nation go into a tailspin, prevent them from borrowing money. It's an incredible economic sanction.
Given that the repayments are often one of the biggest expenditures for these nations they are unlikely to need a loan again if they no longer have to pay it. Especially as most of them can only afford to service the dept and not repay the original loan at the same time. Most of the institutions and govenments who hold these loans know they will never be repaid - they are a cash cow they don't want to give up no matter how much misery they cause.