Subject:
|
Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:53:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
478 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
Wait why would Iraq have a debt? Saddam’s regime had a debt but what does
that have to do with Iraq?
|
Who else should pay it. When a company gets a new CEO, does its debt usually
get wiped?
|
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 re-build the company based on how they voted at the last AGM...
|
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 analogy (1)is with Soviet Russia, which, as I understand it,
repudiated the debts of the former Czarist regime upon change of control, and
with post Napoleonic France (which I’m not sure what they did and am too lazy to
go look it up, but I’d put a high probability on it... might be wrong) and with
post Nazi Germany, which at least on the eastern side was all about repudiating
debt of the former regime...
Strangely enough these three countries are among the major squawkers who want
debt repaid and want contracts let so they can get in on selling 2.50 USD a
gallon gas to the military and so forth...
I’d say that when the Putin regime(2) makes good on the Czarist debt (and
goods/lands seized) that the USSR dissed, plus interest, then Putin and his gang
have a claim, but not much before that.
1 - or example set, actually, since it turns out to be that these are examples
of the very same thing!
2 - note the use of “Putin regime” rather than “Russian Government”.. it is
becoming increasingly obvious that Putin is just another strongman and the rule
of law is not too important to him.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
