|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
Friday Night Skylines Pedestrian Bridge, Take II Oktoberfest 2004 Mind Control to Major Tom yeahyeahology Question? Hold Yer Nose Give Me Libertarian...? Duh? Here I Go Again Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
10.24.2004
When a nation borrows money, who owns that debt? If its a brutal tyrant that victimized his own people do those people then inherit the debt once the leader is deposed? Can a nation then borrow more money even if the new government is not duly elected by the people? What about if that country is occupied by a foreign army? What if you are loaning money to a nation and then another nation goes in and topples the government that you were doing business with? Do you lose that money? Or does it transfer to the people of that nation? Or does it transfer to the nation that now occupies that country? Even if that leader was a tyrant? Governments, like corporations are just entities that represent a collection of people. They are really just hollow shells, immortal in theory, but sometimes short lived. And I often wonder just how it is possible that these entities can own things and borrow money. All seems well as long as governments are stable and democratically elected. The government represents the will of the people, at least in theory, so it seems fair that the people share the responsibility of assets and debts owned by that government. So yes, even though I did not vote for him, I still own the debt that Bush has been racking up in the last few years. And we will own more of it if he is re-elected. But Saddam was a different story. Even though there were elections in Saddam's Iraq, I doubt few of us would contend that they were anything other than show elections. The populace was coerced by the threat of violence to vote for their leader. So I would think it a bit unfair for the people of Iraq to be saddled with the debts imposed on them by Saddam. But the debt holders have a different idea. Some countries like Russia and France were opposed to the war. Their opposition was due in some part to their business dealings with Saddam. Russia is owed about $9 billion. France is owed about $5 billion. Germany is owed about $5 billion. The United States is owed about $4 billion. The total Iraqi debt owed to outside creditors is estimated to be between $60 billion and $130 billion. The creditor nations are pushing for a "restructuring" of the loans, much like you get when you go to credit counseling. They argue that since Iraq has such oil wealth that some of that wealth should be used to pay them back. I say, what a great way to get Iraq back and on its feet, by siphoning off some of its oil revenue. The United States is pushing to get creditors to forgive the Iraqi loans out of concern that American money spent on the assistance will be used instead to pay off debt. So why are the Iraqis taking out new loans from the IMF? The International Monetary Fund on Wednesday approved an emergency loan of $436.7 million for Iraq, the first assistance it has provided to help the country rebuild its wartorn economy. Who is responsible for this loan since the U.S. is the government in Iraq for all practical concerns? Why is Iraq borrowing money when we are spending over $100 billion dollars there? And why is Iraq paying money for reparations, with some of that money going to U.S. and British corporations like Halliburten and KFC? Since Saddam was toppled in April, Iraq has paid out $1.8bn in reparations to the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), the Geneva-based quasi tribunal that assesses claims and disburses awards. Of those payments, $37m have gone to Britain and $32.8m have gone to the United States. Its all so confusing. Aren't we rebuilding Iraq? Despite the $18.4bn of US tax dollars allocated for Iraq's reconstruction, the Washington Post estimates that only $29m has been spent on water, sanitation, health, roads, bridges, and public safety combined. Interesting. Don't you think? |
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
