 | | Right on the money
|
|
Some will be too quick to dismiss (URL) this article> as farce, but the underlying story is worth reflection. Dave! (21 years ago, 16-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) I think it still has legs! (...) Indeed the Bolsheviks and East Germany(?) did cancel their international debt (as well as nationalise industry and seize land) when they took power; being raving communists they had little sympathy for the (...) (21 years ago, 16-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) That's if the company has no assetts. Iraq has assets; I doubt the war would have happened otherwise. ;) Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 16-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) The company/CEO analogy is a bit squiffy, we're talking about soverign nations, not corporations which presumably are a bit more constrained and tend to make contracts, not treaties. So it ought to be ditched as not very appropriate The proper (...) (21 years ago, 16-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
|
(...) Depends if the old CEO is responsible for bringing the company to its knees. Often when companies go into receivership the creditors receive a miniscule portion of what is owed. But generally those creditors are not barred from helping to (...) (21 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
