NationStates Jolt Archive

What would happen if everyone forgave the third world of its debt? Just curious as to see if it would ruin the world, banks, other nations etc... Let me remind you, the third world only owes 6% of the the total world debt, so maybe it won't have too much of an impact?

They would borrow more money and no one would probably lend to them.

What would happen? They'd probably run up more debt and guilt everyone into forgiving it again. Still, we should probably forgive the debt just once to offer them a better chance at developing their economies.

What would happen if everyone forgave the third world of its debt? Just curious as to see if it would ruin the world, banks, other nations etc... Let me remind you, the third world only owes 6% of the the total world debt, so maybe it won't have too much of an impact?
I doubt anything, because I sincerely doubt that anyone expects a nation in the 3rd World to actually pay its debts anyway.

It's not the debt that really kills them, it's the interest on the debt.

What would happen if everyone forgave the third world of its debt?

Probably not a lot so its best not too. The west deserves to repaid, regardless of the cost to the 3rd world.

The west deserves to repaid

Oh really?

I say its not the debt its the inability to have any money making schemes

you know its all gone to shit when corrupt officials don’t have mansions!

Oh really?

Are you saying we don't?

Are you saying we don't?

Because of the interest, most of the countries have already paid back much more then what we initially owed them.

Because of the interest, most of the countries have already paid back much more then what we initially owed them.

good. Thats what happens with interest. now they just have to pay back the rest.

actually it would be a better thing to act worse and worse to 3rd world countries to make them say thats enough we don't take your frigging money anymore and will eat what we produce and nothing more. All countries must have import export balance for a better world or they become market places, farms and biatches of richer nations. We call this colony too, yes.

good. Thats what happens with interest. now they just have to pay back the rest.

We don't deserve any such interest nor do we need it.

We don't deserve any such interest nor do we need it.

the too high interest is only meant to keep control of economy in those small countries to keep them from growing. Its against free trade, globalisation and competition but no one cares.

We don't deserve any such interest nor do we need it.

yes we do on both counts. Do you not your way of life or something

yes we do on both counts.

How?

Do you not your way of life or something

Huh?

How?
Because we deserve it. It never hurts to be richer


Huh?

We don't collect the debt, we risk the loss of our life. Its as simple as that.

Because we deserve it. It never hurts to be richer


That doesn't explain why we deserve it.


We don't collect the debt, we risk the loss of our life. Its as simple as that.

How?

We don't deserve any such interest nor do we need it.

I can't tell if you're actually trying to negate the idea of interest, or are merely supporting a moral standard.

The issue is, we can't pay them back entirely, and this isn't just an economical matter. If we pay them back entirely, they might never learn the repercussions of not operating an ethical economy and government. However, many of these 3rd world nations have never even had this chance to begin with.

So, do you give them a clean slate and hope for the best ?

Lately alot of the larger companies have been reporting such massive profits that, rather than paying dividends to shareholders, they have donated their money to helping poverty and disease. I think this is exactly what SHOULD be done. Let our governments worry more about our own people (which is their job), and let our educated masses help those in need with our extra riches, whether they live in our own country or not.

This brings about a debate on whether or not this would hamper progress or develop it, but I'll leave that for another time.

I can't tell if you're actually trying to negate the idea of interest, or are merely supporting a moral standard.

The issue is, we can't pay them back entirely, and this isn't just an economical matter. If we pay them back entirely, they might never learn the repercussions of not operating an ethical economy and government. However, many of these 3rd world nations have never even had this chance to begin with.

So, do you give them a clean slate and hope for the best ?

Lately alot of the larger companies have been reporting such massive profits that, rather than paying dividends to shareholders, they have donated their money to helping poverty and disease. I think this is exactly what SHOULD be done. Let our governments worry more about our own people (which is their job), and let our educated masses help those in need with our extra riches, whether they live in our own country or not.

This brings about a debate on whether or not this would hamper progress or develop it, but I'll leave that for another time.

Well, I think we should do various programs such as gradually reducing interest, reducing it more based on how well the government is doing in handelling the money. This has happening on various countries at the moment, but not many, with promising results. However, in no way do i think we "deserve" the money.

I agree mostly with that. We don't need the money really, but what I'm not sure is when our nations do their accounting how this loss of future money gained would affect the foreign exchange market. It probably doesn't have any affect at all, but just a thought.

I like what you mentioned about lowering interest based on performance though. I didn't even think about that as a possibility.

That doesn't explain why we deserve it.
Because it our money. If we don't get it back, we let them steal.

Because it our money. If we don't get it back, we let them steal.

very possessive arnt you?

Because it our money. If we don't get it back, we let them steal.

How is the interest our money? It's their money that they don't owe us which we are taking from them.

How is the interest our money? It's their money that they don't owe us which we are taking from them.

They do owe us though. That was part of the deal. when they agreeded to it the interest became our money.

very possessive arnt you?

yes, and selfish.

This is a catch-22; the debt was incurred by corrupt leaders, but, those feeling the burden are the people. We are told we should forgive the debt for the good of the people, but, it won't do any good, so long as corruption is rampant in third world countries, where people are generally uneducated. If we were to forgive the debt, but not solve the issue of corruption, it would permit the leaders to continue as they have, but have a smaller debt, for a short amount of time. They might put something into education and healthcare, but, so long as corruption exists, debt will...

I doubt anything, because I sincerely doubt that anyone expects a nation in the 3rd World to actually pay its debts anyway.
:rolleyes:

A LOT of "third world" countries do pay their debt on time. Some (like India) are paying back debts in advance. Some of those who cannot pay, get it rearranged/forfeited in exchange for stuff like change in foreign policies etc (Pak got a lot of its loans cleared for its support in war on terror - a fair trade if u look at it from American POV.

In short, those who lend always get it back, in some way or other. Even a lot of the "aid" money (given for "free") comes with strings attached.

yes, and selfish.

i gathered that last bit, but isnt it a bit harsh that the richest 5 people in the world have a larger welath than the combined wealth of the 50 poorest countries?

:rolleyes:

A LOT of "third world" countries do pay their debt on time. Some (like India) are paying back debts in advance. Some of those who cannot pay, get it rearranged/forfeited in exchange for stuff like change in foreign policies etc (Pak got a lot of its loans cleared for its support in war on terror - a fair trade if u look at it from American POV.

In short, those who lend always get it back, in some way or other. Even a lot of the "aid" money (given for "free") comes with strings attached.


India is a third world country ?

I'd consider them to be more in between 2nd and 1st
To have one of the largest economies on the planet and be a third world nation is hard to believe.

but isnt it a bit harsh that the richest 5 people in the world have a larger welath than the combined wealth of the 50 poorest countries?
no, I love that.

i gathered that last bit, but isnt it a bit harsh that the richest 5 people in the world have a larger welath than the combined wealth of the 50 poorest countries?
That's the sad thing about reality.

India is a third world country ?

I'd consider them to be more in between 2nd and 1st
To have one of the largest economies on the planet and be a third world nation is hard to believe.

I suppose it is a "third world country" but on its way out. It is first world in many parts (the urban boom towns in the south and the westers parts leading the IT revolution) and in some respects of what first world means (functioning democracy and strong democratic institutions etc) but is third world in some respects (infrastructure, large areas of relative lawlessness, existence of grinding poverty for significant percentage of population etc).

There is no "second world" countries nowadays. The classification is as follows

"First world" - rich, democratic, "free nations" like western EU, US, Canada, AU and NZ.

"Second World" - the Soveit bloc.

"Third world" - the rest of us.

With the end of cold war, these classification have no meanings but are still persisted with.

I suppose it is a "third world country" but on its way out. It is first world in many parts (the urban boom towns in the south and the westers parts leading the IT revolution) and in some respects of what first world means (functioning democracy and strong democratic institutions etc) but is third world in some respects (infrastructure, large areas of relative lawlessness, existence of grinding poverty for significant percentage of population etc).

There is no "second world" countries nowadays. The classification is as follows

"First world" - rich, democratic, "free nations" like western EU, US, Canada, AU and NZ.

"Second World" - the Soveit bloc.

"Third world" - the rest of us.

With the end of cold war, these classification have no meanings but are still persisted with.

Yeah these classifications are worthless and only reflect a WASP look on world.

:rolleyes:

A LOT of "third world" countries do pay their debt on time. Some (like India) are paying back debts in advance. Some of those who cannot pay, get it rearranged/forfeited in exchange for stuff like change in foreign policies etc (Pak got a lot of its loans cleared for its support in war on terror - a fair trade if u look at it from American POV.

In short, those who lend always get it back, in some way or other. Even a lot of the "aid" money (given for "free") comes with strings attached.

Which brings us to the real problem. To stop all debts of third world countries wouldn't help anything, if in place of them the IMF and other institutions oblige those third-world countries extreme liberal laws. The reason why e.g. India and China became richer is exactly because they refused to become extreme free-market places. Of course other reasons, such as dictatorships, corruption, wars, natural "disasters", ... have their impact on third world economies as well, but I beleave the biggest problem is the imposing of terrible rules on third world countries by some international institutions as the IMF.

soviestan you have manged to get it totally arse over tit again

the banks who lent to third world nations will never not get paid, western governments/ agencies like the IMF will pay them the prinicpal and make a bilateral deal with the nation in question. your thought process that the people who lent lose out is 100% incorrect

and we come to the fundamental question. risk. banks charge sub saharan african states 28% on the dollar and western states 7% for a reason. its taking the piss to then complain about default after making hay on the higher 'riskier' rate.

Some developing nations have unilaterally decided that they have paid their foreign debts and refuse to pay anymore. One of them is Cuba. I doubt Vietnam feels any need to pay any such loans.

As Aryavartha said, a lot of the "aid" money (given for "free") comes with strings attached.

This allows rich nations to dictate policy to poorer nations. The USA is notorious for this. The current US government refuses to give money to developing countries for AIDS programs unless they crack down on prostitution. Brazil was one of the few countries to refuse the aid on these grounds. The Brasilian government felt, correctly, that their sex workers were far more instrumental as part of the cure than the problem. Some analysts argue that such imposition of neo-liberal policies by rich nations on poor ones is worsening the problems of underdeveloped nations. One example commonly cited is in Africa, where education is massively under funded due to such policies, while it has been proven that better education reduces the HIV infection rate in the same region.

The International Hugo Fund sounds better every day.

Which brings us to the real problem. To stop all debts of third world countries wouldn't help anything, if in place of them the IMF and other institutions oblige those third-world countries extreme liberal laws. The reason why e.g. India and China became richer is exactly because they refused to become extreme free-market places. Of course other reasons, such as dictatorships, corruption, wars, natural "disasters", ... have their impact on third world economies as well,.

If you look at "third world countries" which default on debts and those which pay- you can see a pattern. It would be wrong to lump them all together as Fiddlebottoms attempted to.

The main problem is the lack of responsible and accountable democratic leadership in the poorly performing countries. It is compounded by the desire to control by proxy - by the so-called "first world" nations.

American policy has been that a dictator poodle is better than democratic monkeys. That policy may not be an American invention, but it does not take away the blame for them propping up these tinpot dictators all across the world (with the excuse of "cold war expediency", "balance of power", "lesser evil", "there is no alternative" blah blah...).

but I beleave the biggest problem is the imposing of terrible rules on third world countries by some international institutions as the IMF

Argentina comes to mind.

Removing the debt from a third world nation to a developed nation such as the US, Britain, France, etc would give them less of an influence over those nations, simply put. These nations are in debt to 1st World nations, creating a sort of dependency to them. Despite the fact that I wouldn't mind seeing this sort of debt removed entirely, I doubt it'd ever happen, fully (As in, all debt for every 3rd world nation).

Removing the debt from a third world nation to a developed nation such as the US, Britain, France, etc would give them less of an influence over those nations, simply put. These nations are in debt to 1st World nations, creating a sort of dependency to them.
Which is another great reason to not lift the debts. It gives the west more control, making us stronger.

Which is another great reason to not lift the debts. It gives the west more control, making us stronger.



I disagree with the fact that it should not be lifted. Giving the West more control over third world nations, in my opinion, is a bad idea, especially if it's getting to the point of smothering the third world nations' political policies/relations with the rest of the world. I'm more of a fan of giving these nations a break, and taking less of a role in making decisions for them.

Granted, some nations don't exactly have the maturity to make their own decisions, in deciding what's best for their nation, and they make even worse mistakes if they are allowed (speaking of civil wars/military coups/etc). Perhaps some sort of compromise could be made, rather than having it one way or the other? Getting rid of their debt with certain (fair) conditions.

There is no "second world" countries nowadays. The classification is as follows

"First world" - rich, democratic, "free nations" like western EU, US, Canada, AU and NZ.

"Second World" - the Soveit bloc.

"Third world" - the rest of us.



oops. forgot Japan on the list of first world nations. you guys always do...

anyways... if the USA just took over the world, then we wouldnt have any more foreign aid. we would save the world.

wanna save Darfur and Tibet? stop whining and send in Delta Force and the Screamin Eagles!

so thats my view. USA can take over the world and every nation will be the best nation, cause theyd be America! yay! the UN might whine and pass a resolution, but that dosent do anything obviously. so yay for America!