• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fun With Flags

How do you feel when you see your national flag?

How much of your standard of living has been contingent on your country installing friendly dictators, imposing "free" trade on countries with less developed economies, proxy wars, etc.?

I don't think any person from a developed country should feel anything but shame in what their national flag represents.
1. Around easter week "boy some people are getting a bit too fond of the green, white and gold", otherwise it's generally inobtrusive. True flag wavers know that it's only the county colours that should get plastered anywhere (or club if it reaches a county final).

2. Not at all, my country doesn't engage in that sort of thing.

3. Depends on the country, and if they've a bad past how they've shaped up to it.
 
Only if they haven't paid a penny in interest or principal, which is not your argument as I understand it.
We're talking about loans to poor countries that were always going to struggle to pay back the money. When they defaulted on payments 'structural adjustment' was forced on them, which basically means open up the country and its natural resources to large foreign corporations and cut spending on public health, education, infrastructure etc. so the next debt payment can be made.
 
We're talking about loans to poor countries that were always going to struggle to pay back the money. When they defaulted on payments 'structural adjustment' was forced on them, which basically means open up the country and its natural resources to large foreign corporations and cut spending on public health, education, infrastructure etc. so the next debt payment can be made.
So they haven't "already paid back the principal back many times over," that was just a bit of hyperbole to make them seem more sympathy-deserving?
 
Some ideas (not mine, but seem reasonable):

Write off debt that developing countries have already paid the principal back many times over?

Allow developing countries to invest in their public services and infrastructure rather than forcing them to turn their whole economy to paying back the interest on debt?

Stop inflicting free trade rules on developing countries that cannot compete because they have had insufficient time to develop their industries?
None of this makes sense to me. Why are these countries being loaned money in the first place? A loan is an investment, and properly so. It is expected that the borrower will use the money to build something that increases their net productivity. The result is a surplus of wealth, enough to cover the principal, pay the lender a fee for the use of their money, and put money in the borrower's pocket.

Instead, what happens is that the loan intended to invest in public services and infrastructure gets pocketed the kleptocrats that run the country, and now even the interest payments are a struggle. But those interest payments are still owed.

And the corruption is still there. Forgiving the loan won't solve the problem. Giving the money for free won't solve the problem. The first world lenders aren't the problem, except in the sense that they keep naively lending money to deadbeats and grifters. That's the real reason some countries are always developing and never get developed.

Stop corporations suing nation states whose policies hurt their profits?
I for one prefer a world order where governments can be sued by people if they believe the government is behaving unfairly or unjustly.

But sure, okay. Let's do it your way. Let's set up tribunals for each of the sovereign nations. Within its jurisdiction, a tribunal will consider allegations of injustice by the government. If a corporation comes to them and says the government is treating them unjustly, the tribunal will make sure the corporation has a valid legal theory, is following strict due process, and is meeting its burden of proof. If the tribunal finds that the corporation's allegations are not proven, it dismisses the corporation's complaint. Otherwise, if the complaint is proven, then the government is held accountable for its unjust dealings.

How does that sound? It sounds good to me. It satisfies your desire to stop corporations from suing governments just because their new policies are less profitable than the old ones. And it satisfies my desire to allow people to seek justice when a government behaves unjustly. Win-win! We don't even have to compromise!
 
We're talking about loans to poor countries that were always going to struggle to pay back the money. When they defaulted on payments 'structural adjustment' was forced on them, which basically means open up the country and its natural resources to large foreign corporations and cut spending on public health, education, infrastructure etc. so the next debt payment can be made.

So they haven't "already paid back the principal back many times over," that was just a bit of hyperbole to make them seem more sympathy-deserving?

I think what he's trying to say is that if a bad borrower can scrape together enough money to pay the interest every month, they can in theory perpetuate the grift long enough to eventually pay more in interest than the value of the principal. And then he's trying to say that this should count as paying back the principal.

Of course I disagree. The interest payments are to reimburse the lender for the opportunity cost of not having their principle available to them. They're not paying down the principal. They're essentially a subscription fee. The borrower is subscribing to a monthly convenience of holding on to the principal. If a kleptocrat pockets the principal, and then slowly drains the nation's coffers and resources to make the interest payments, that doesn't mean the country is paying back the principal. It just means the country is paying the lender for lost time.
 
So they haven't "already paid back the principal back many times over," that was just a bit of hyperbole to make them seem more sympathy-deserving?
On old loans, yes they have paid back the principal many times over. That is just a mathematical fact.
 
None of this makes sense to me. Why are these countries being loaned money in the first place? A loan is an investment, and properly so. It is expected that the borrower will use the money to build something that increases their net productivity. The result is a surplus of wealth, enough to cover the principal, pay the lender a fee for the use of their money, and put money in the borrower's pocket.

Instead, what happens is that the loan intended to invest in public services and infrastructure gets pocketed the kleptocrats that run the country, and now even the interest payments are a struggle. But those interest payments are still owed.

And the corruption is still there. Forgiving the loan won't solve the problem. Giving the money for free won't solve the problem. The first world lenders aren't the problem, except in the sense that they keep naively lending money to deadbeats and grifters. That's the real reason some countries are always developing and never get developed.


I for one prefer a world order where governments can be sued by people if they believe the government is behaving unfairly or unjustly.
But sure, okay. Let's do it your way. Let's set up tribunals for each of the sovereign nations. Within its jurisdiction, a tribunal will consider allegations of injustice by the government. If a corporation comes to them and says the government is treating them unjustly, the tribunal will make sure the corporation has a valid legal theory, is following strict due process, and is meeting its burden of proof. If the tribunal finds that the corporation's allegations are not proven, it dismisses the corporation's complaint. Otherwise, if the complaint is proven, then the government is held accountable for its unjust dealings.

How does that sound? It sounds good to me. It satisfies your desire to stop corporations from suing governments just because their new policies are less profitable than the old ones. And it satisfies my desire to allow people to seek justice when a government behaves unjustly. Win-win! We don't even have to compromise!
I don't think you do. I think you prefer a world where your country can strongarm economically weaker countries. E.g., subsidise your farmers so they can undercut the farmers from developing countries. A world where your country can use its power at the WTO to prevent developing countries having access to affordable medications because it would hurt the bottom line of your countries pharmaceutical industry. A world where private corporations in your country can extract resources from developing countries, take the profits out and sue the government of the developing country if they have the audacity to put in regulations that would make those corporations clean up their environmental damage or capital controls.

That is what the flag of your country and mine and every other developed country stands for: ruthless exploitation.
 
How do you feel when you see your national flag?

How much of your standard of living has been contingent on your country installing friendly dictators, imposing "free" trade on countries with less developed economies, proxy wars, etc.?

I don't think any person from a developed country should feel anything but shame in what their national flag represents.
Right now?

Shame, embarrassment, fear.

Fear for our future. Fear that we may not HAVE a future. Fear that perhaps we ARE represented by the Buffoon-in-Chief and his insanity.

:(
 
How do you feel when you see your national flag?
It depends very much on the context. For instance, Danes tend to decorate their Christmas trees with Danish flags.

Two American expats with their Danish Christmas tree.

Growing up with the tradition, I didn't think much about it. It just was. However, my German girlfriend was shocked when she saw it. She considered it to be a sign of ultra nationalism, which I don't think it is, even though nationalism appears to have been at the root of the tradition when it was established 150 years ago.
Unlike my girlfriend, I knew that it was a symbol of Christmas in that context and not really of nationalism. (And the colors go well with Christmas - like the Coca-Cola version of :xmas0651).

Most Danes also don't think about the heathen roots of bringing a tree into your home for solstice, and nowadays most Danes don't even think about Christ in the context of Christmas. It helps that the Danish word for Christmas is jul.

As a symbol of the nation, I hate the 🇩🇰 as much as other symbols of nationalism.
(But it does come in handy on Twitter, since Denmark is seven characters and 🇩🇰 is only two.)
 
It depends very much on the context. For instance, Danes tend to decorate their Christmas trees with Danish flags.
Don't Danes decorate with their flag for other celebrations? I remember seeing on a TV show it was somebody's graduation from school so her family put up flag decorations for the party, like flags are just a generic "celebration" decoration.
 
Compound interest doesn't work that way. 5% compound would take ~15 years for the interest to equal the principal and 8% only ~9 years.

So a loan taken out in the 1970's (~40 years ago) has 2.7 and 4.4 doubling times at 5% and 8% interest, respectively.
Yes, as a first order of approximation the "rule of 72" applies.

To work out how long it would take for a debt or investment to double, divide 72 by the interest rate (or for prices, the inflation rate).

3%, 24 years
6%, 12 years
9%, 8 years

Works ok for everything except very small and very large values
 
Let's say one way or another Trump gets Greenland. Does anyone believe that when Democrats get into power they will hand it and the rare earth minerals back to Denmark?

To survive the USA needs to forever expand and consume more. If it stops or can't it withers and dies.
 
How do you feel when you see your national flag?

How much of your standard of living has been contingent on your country installing friendly dictators, imposing "free" trade on countries with less developed economies, proxy wars, etc.?

I don't think any person from a developed country should feel anything but shame in what their national flag represents.
I've slept in 72 countries* and was always careful to respect all national flags, except for The United States of Arkansas. Too many relatives there.

*Free vacations rock! Thank you, taxpayers!
 
Could you tell us which particular loans to which particular countries you are talking about.
Ah, you've got me! I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of finance extended to developing countries over the last 75+ years.


...

At the end of 2016, the U.S.-based Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Centre for Applied Research at the Norwegian School of Economics published an extensive report on global financial flows. They tallied up all of the financial resources that are transferred between rich and poor countries each year—not just aid, foreign investment, and trade, but also transfers like debt cancellation, remittances, and capital flight. Their calculations revealed that in 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of about $1.3 trillion in total inflows. But that same year, some $3.3 trillion flowed out of them. In other words, the South sent $2 trillion more to the rest of the world than they received. What this means is that developing countries are net creditors to the rest of the world—the exact opposite of the usual narrative. Indeed, since 1980, these net outflows have added up to a total of $16.3 trillion. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3 trillion is roughly the GDP of the United States.

What do these large net outflows consist of? Some of it is payments on external debt. According to World Bank data, developing countries pay out around $200 billion each year in interest alone, with most of it going to creditors in rich countries—a direct cash transfusion that far outstrips the aid that flows in the other direction. In all the years since 1980, the South has forked over an eye-watering $4.3 trillion in interest payments on external debt. Importantly, much of the interest being paid out today is being rendered on decades-old loans that have already been paid off many times over. And much of it is being paid on principal that was accumulated by illegitimate dictators—many of them propped up by Western powers—who have long since been deposed. In fact, around $700 billion of sovereign debt in the global South today is considered illegitimate or “odious” by international standards.
Another major source of reverse flow leaves in the form of profits repatriated by multinational companies operating in the developing world—a practice that has grown rapidly since capital controls were liberalized beginning in the 1980s. Multinational companies repatriate close to $500 billion each year out of developing countries, which outstrips the aid budget four times over and roughly matches or even exceeds the amount of foreign direct investment that the South receives. Think of all the profit that Coca-Cola extracts out of Central American sugar plantations and banks back home, for example, or the income that Total pulls out of West Africa’s oil fields.

...

And all this has gone on and continues to go on under Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Labour, etc.
 

Back
Top Bottom