Debt.

[Jackal]

Well, General Talk seems to be heading down the "ye, congratz " route once again, so here's a new Jackal-Talk for you folks with a brain.

How bout debt in poor countries? Ain't that a bitch? So here's the thought. Do you think richer countries (US of A, England, France etc) should cancel out the debt of countries like Africa, Colombia and other South American countries? Should richer countries cancel the debt of poorer countries?

Don't you think that poor countries can't develop themselves because they are in debt? Anything they get, has to be used to a) live off of & b) be paid back to the country that lent them the money. Naturally a lot of richer countries ask for interest and what not. So, to help their progress of becoming a stable country, do you think that the debts of these countries should be wiped clean?

On one hand, it seems feasible, let them get onto their own feat without a huge debt hanging over their head and what not. On the other hand, one could argue that a lot of the poorer countries have borrowed money from richer countries to finance their weapons in wars that they are fighting within the country itself. Basically, it's money used to finance a war instead of to finance the well being of the habitants of that country.

Not saying every country that is in debt has done so, but a lot of them have. Then again, who is to blame? The government that was governing at that time and took the money to finance their war or the voters/citizens that let the politicians get away with it?

So my question reads: Should richer countries forget about the debt of the poorer countries? Why? Give me some reasons etc. Let's make this a good one.

[Jugs]

The richer countries should definitely cut the debts of the poorer countries who've had a good record, like they're not funding civil war, etc. Most poor countries is/were ran by corrupt dictatorships, terrible . Colonization has practically ruined most of Africa and some of Asia. All though some of it is fixed, there are still heaps of poor countries in debt, and if, like I said, the country isn't funding a civil war, then the debt should be forgotten.

[Sac-1]

That is actually a pretty good idea, I never thought of that. I think they should do that because I can never see a poor country develop into a stable country if they are always in dept.

The bad thing about it is that they might not use this as an advantage and buy weapons and all kinds of other stuff instead of using it for development, but that wouldn't happen in Africa, would it? Didn't the Africans up north reach a peace treaty with the South Africans? I wouldn't think they'd buy weapons since they did that unless they are attacking some other country. That is not saying that all the other countries won't get weapons.

[Matthew]

I'm not sure wiping will debt will help erase all those countries problems. Theres an old saying: you can give a man a fish, and feed him for a day. Or you can teach a man to fish, and it will feed him for a lifetime.

[Laxation]

Its not really a blanket thing you can do... The rich countries could look at the money they gave them, see what it was spent on, and then decide whether or not to wipe the debt.
Like you said... its pointless wiping debts that was just spent on wars or whatever.

I'm not sure wiping will debt will help erase all those countries problems. Theres an old saying: you can give a man a fish, and feed him for a day. Or you can teach a man to fish, and it will feed him for a lifetime.

In this case, its sort of giving a man fish. But then before they can eat it, taking it away from them, and asking for more in return.

[Matthew]

Like you said... its pointless wiping debts that was just spent on wars or whatever.

The only thing pointless is your posting.

Your interpretation of the analogy is completely wrong. Simply giving the in debt nations a free pass may not solve anything in the long run, as they dont know how to support themselves, and are likely to get themselves into a similar problem 50 years from now. If countries want to genuinely help those poorer nations, they should think about putting in some sort of education on how to build a trade and economy up, so they arent so reliant on the rest of the world.

[Jackal]

I was going to suggest that after reading your initial post, you're on to something with the fish thing.

Perhaps set up a "helping hand" organisation/second foreign government basically teaching them the ropes of how to use the funds at their disposal, instead of completely eliminating the debt.

Way to kill a thread. Stop being smart.

[Laxation]

Like you said... its pointless wiping debts that was just spent on wars or whatever.

The only thing pointless is your posting.

Wtf is wrong with you? I said it is pointless wiping debts... Now what are you arguing again?

Your interpretation of the analogy is completely wrong.

Explain? To expand what I said, rich countries right now are giving poor ones money (fish), but then they want to be repaid what money they gave them. Not only do they want the original amount of money back, but also interest.

Simply giving the in debt nations a free pass may not solve anything in the long run, as they dont know how to support themselves, and are likely to get themselves into a similar problem 50 years from now. If countries want to genuinely help those poorer nations, they should think about putting in some sort of education on how to build a trade and economy up, so they arent so reliant on the rest of the world.

Thats easier said than done.
At the moment, the poor countries not only dont have the money to support themselves, but they dont know how to help themselves. If they did, itd be a safe bet that there would be no 'poor' countries.
As for education, the poor countries are being educated already. (not all of them, obviously)

And of course wiping debt wont erase all the problems... but at least its a step in a positive direction.

[Matthew]

Can you at least attempt to think before posting, rather than searching for a way to respond to every individual comment?

Ok heres the analogy: If you give a man a fish, you only feed him once. If you teach him how to fish himself, he can feed himself.

Now by relating that to the current situation, if countries simply wipe the debt, sure its a short term answer (like giving the man a fish), but what happens in the long run? These countries need to learn how to survive (by learning how to fish) so they dont have to rely on the charity of others.

Seriously, it's not that hard to understand. Word.

Thats easier said than done.

Nobody is saying it will be easy, but it will be much more worthwhile for everyone involved to do it properly and establish some type of economic and trade system rather than simply wiping the debt.

I'm not against wiping the debt. I'm against thinking it will solve all their problems.

[Laxation]

Now by relating that to the current situation, if countries simply wipe the debt, sure its a short term answer (like giving the man a fish), but what happens in the long run?

I related it differently.
The countries gave them the money in the first place as a short term solution (the fish) instead of teaching them to make money (how to fish). I added wiping the debt onto the analogy (take the fish away, and then some)
If the debt is wiped, at least they get to keep the fish they recieved in the first place.
Was it that hard to understand?

I'm not against wiping the debt. I'm against thinking it will solve all their problems.

I really dont think anyone thinks it will solve all the problems...

establish some type of economic and trade system rather than simply wiping the debt.

Doesnt the free trade agreement do this? There is some sort of trade deal, be it the free trade agreement or something else, that is in place to help countries, or at least prevent discrimination

[Matthew]

You related it differently. The proposal of simply wiping their debt is like that of giving them a fish.

As far as I'm aware, there is no FTA with smaller 3rd world countries, not from australia anyway.

[Matt]

having debt over someone is an easy way to control them.

[killer_cr0ss0ver]

I think forgetting about the debt it not quite possible. for me lowering the interest rate will help poor country like ours pay little by little upto the point where its completely paid.

[Colin]

I'm not sure wiping will debt will help erase all those countries problems. Theres an old saying: you can give a man a fish, and feed him for a day. Or you can teach a man to fish, and it will feed him for a lifetime.

Of course, that can backfire. The US taught some middle-eastern countries how to fish, and now they get charged more for oil.

[killer_cr0ss0ver]

I'm not sure wiping will debt will help erase all those countries problems. Theres an old saying: you can give a man a fish, and feed him for a day. Or you can teach a man to fish, and it will feed him for a lifetime.

Of course, that can backfire. The US taught some middle-eastern countries how to fish, and now they get charged more for oil.

WHAT YOU GIVE IS WHAT YOU RECEIVE!

[Axel]

Richer countries have no obligation to help out poorer countries. There is a reason they're in debt, often self-inflicted. It takes effort and desire from the citizens of these countries to force real change. Protest, revolt.... force a revolution as a group. That's what it took for the US to become what it is today. You reap what you sow so to speak... if you sit on your ass and don't facilitate change, do not expect others to do it for you.

[Matt]

you forget that some countries don't have the physical climate conditions that makes riches hard to come by. No minerals, no arable, no oil.