Vulture Funds Prey on Liberia

[Exarch]

economic hitmen alright,
this is plain disgusting
but it's legit

[justicar5]

economic hitmen alright,
this is plain disgusting
but it's legit

sickening, but legal.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Lets see Liberia reneges on a legit debt and the people trying to collect that debt are the bad guys.

Only people with dangerously poor intellectual ability could think that.

[Bovril]

Lets see Liberia reneges on a legit debt and the people trying to collect that debt are the bad guys. .

The Liberian government and the Liberian people are not the same thing. But, as usual, the real 'bad guy' is systemic.

[justicar5]

Lets see Liberia reneges on a legit debt and the people trying to collect that debt are the bad guys.

Only people with dangerously poor intellectual ability could think that.

The deposed former goverment ( military dictatorship) took out loans, after being deposed in a revolution, there victims are expected to repay those loans? Chase the families, most of those loans are probably in their banks anyway.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

New management doesn't absolve responsibility for old debt.

[justicar5]

New management doesn't absolve responsibility for old debt.

cool when is america going to repay all the costs the Crown ran up defending it from indians before independence? Plus a few hundred years of interest ofc.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

cool when is america going to repay all the costs the Crown ran up defending it from indians before independence? Plus a few hundred years of interest ofc.

Why would the USA pay a debt the English ran up?

That's ing ridiculous. A entire people and new country shouldn't be held responsible for the 30 years old debts of an authoritarian military regime they overthrew,

Excuses excuses excuses.

Legally and ethically, I think this is fine. Morally, these banks and investment places are pure evil. If I owned those companies, I'd at least give Liberia a few years to pay the debt, or I would liquidate it and forget. To pursue a nation for 5% of its G.D.P. when its own people are dying in the streets before AGE FIFTY is despicable. There is a nice, cozy place in the depths of Hell for whoever seriously pursues this obsession with collecting a useless and unpayable debt.

I do not foresee a successful career in finance for you. To extent a person or country relies on credit, it is to their great benefit to service and payoff old debts. That builds confidence between lender and borrower. If Liberia (or any other country for that matter) fails to pay its debts then that makes if even more difficult for it to obtain credit in the future. And without credit, Liberia won't be able to make the changes it needs to make to improve the quality of life there.

[Plan C]

I do not foresee a successful career in finance for you. To extent a person or country relies on credit, it is to their great benefit to service and payoff old debts. That builds confidence between lender and borrower. If Liberia (or any other country for that matter) fails to pay its debts then that makes if even more difficult for it to obtain credit in the future. And without credit, Liberia won't be able to make the changes it needs to make to improve the quality of life there.

Mate, this way of thinking is so out of this world for Liberians in question I don't even know where to begin.

I happen to contribute decent sums to several charities each year and I'd rather my money bought something more relevant than some pr*ck's new Bentley. Go tell those hungry people that they need to build fiscal confidence to pave the way to the rosy future of plenty. I love to hear guys like you peddling those bull abstract ideas to the penniless from the comfort of your home. Even I know life is not entirely about money, get a grip mate.

[Dr. Croccer]

New management doesn't absolve responsibility for old debt.

That's ing ridiculous. A entire people and new country shouldn't be held responsible for the 30 years old debts of an authoritarian military regime they overthrew, mainly because it was so economically incompetent. That's like Kim-Jung Il lending masses of money now, and when the North Koreans overhrow the regime in 2040, they're forced to pay the debts.

By that kind of logic, the US could be sued into paying debts the 13 Colonies and the Governor made back in the 18th century.

[Bovril]

New management doesn't absolve responsibility for old debt.

There's actually a legal precedent for countries reneging on debts run up under dictatorships. Besides, in a free market, lenders should asses the viability of their loans, and if an entity, be it a corporation or a regime, gets rolled up, that's that. Its about fiscal responsibility and not relying on big (inter-)government(al organisations) to bail you out.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

There's actually a legal precedent for countries reneging on debts run up under dictatorships. Besides, in a free market, lenders should asses the viability of their loans, and if an entity, be it a corporation or a regime, gets rolled up, that's that. Its about fiscal responsibility and not relying on big (inter-)government(al organisations) to bail you out.

Certainly there is a great deal of risk in loaning money to some governments. And the institutions that did so lost their shirts. However that doesn't mean the government of Liberia still isn't liable to the note holders. These "vulture funds themselves assumed the risk of not collecting on the debt.

BTW: Liberia lost its case and is liable for the debt. Though it still looks like they won't bge paying it still.

[Bovril]

Certainly there is a great deal of risk in loaning money to some governments. And the institutions that did so lost their shirts. However that doesn't mean the government of Liberia still isn't liable to the note holders. These "vulture funds themselves assumed the risk of not collecting on the debt.

The trouble is, we have to define what constituted the goverment of Liberia. A total shift of regime has severe implications in all sorts of ways, including for creditors. Regimes are institutions. They really can cease to exist. When institutions (or persons) cease to exist, their creditors can seize their assets, but that's it. A new institution that fulfills the same role has no responsibility for the previous institution's debt under normal circumstances. Why shouldn't this be so for the ruling instituions of areas of land?

BTW: Liberia lost its case and is liable for the debt. Though it still looks like they won't bge paying it still.

I was refering to WTO rulings, not British courts.

[Monarchist]

Legally and ethically, I think this is fine. Morally, these banks and investment places are pure evil. If I owned those companies, I'd at least give Liberia a few years to pay the debt, or I would liquidate it and forget. To pursue a nation for 5% of its G.D.P. when its own people are dying in the streets before AGE FIFTY is despicable. There is a nice, cozy place in the depths of Hell for whoever seriously pursues this obsession with collecting a useless and unpayable debt.

[Dr. Croccer]

Why would the USA pay a debt the English ran up?

''New management doesn't absolve responsibility for old debt.''

Excuses excuses excuses.

Basic facts, more like. Let's assume that Obama declares himself God Emperor of Unitinu. He establishes a police state and represses the American people for decades, using massive loans from foreign countries to finance his militarist regime and build palaces for himself. Eventually, the American people manages to rise up against him and change the regime from a tiranny to a new Republic, a struggling one, after years of economical problems. After 30 years, it's going quite well with the new Republic of the US. Then bankers demand that they pay the loans Obama made decades earlier. Does that seem fair or logical at all to you?

[Valentin the II]

Yeah, so very convenient.

The nation (ie the people) got in debt. They should pay it back.

[motiv-8]

The nation (ie the people) got in debt.

The history of Liberia suggets "the people" didn't have much to do with it.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

''New management doesn't absolve responsibility for old debt.''

Unless I am mistaken the English crown did not dissolve when the USA was formed. Any incurred by England remained Englands'.

Basic facts, more like. Let's assume that Obama declares himself God Emperor of Unitinu. He establishes a police state and represses the American people for decades, using massive loans from foreign countries to finance his militarist regime and build palaces for himself. Eventually, the American people manages to rise up against him and change the regime from a tiranny to a new Republic, a struggling one, after years of economical problems. After 30 years, it's going quite well with the new Republic of the US. Then bankers demand that they pay the loans Obama made decades earlier. Does that seem fair or logical at all to you?

Actually it does seem fair and logical to me.

[Dr. Croccer]

Unless I am mistaken the English crown did not dissolve when the USA was formed. Any incurred by England remained Englands'.

The debts were made on the American continent, ergo not the burden of the British.

[Copperknickers II]

Actually it does seem fair and logical to me.

Please tell me you are being sarcastic. I have just seen your sig. It is the fault of people like you that poverty exists.

I hardly think that making peasants dying of Malaria give up their money, because of something that was nothing to do with them, is going to help them in the future. If anything, it was a bad investment on the part of the Creditors, therefore the Creditors alone suffer. A regime change in a country is rather like a hurricane, it just happens, and no amount of oppressing Black people is going to cure the loss of money.