Subject:
|
Re: Bush defends exclusion order on contracts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:03:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
412 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
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.
|
I think it still has legs!
| |
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...
|
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 world of international
finance! ;-) BTW: One of Russia’s debtors in 1918 was the USA; they later
supported White (Czarist) Russia in the civil war primarily due to the lost
debt. (1)
Those were unilateral actions; what’s being sought in Iraq is multi-national
agreement. It looks like some of the debt will be cancelled in exchange for
part of the >$80bn Bush is throwing at Iraq. Basically, the US taxpayer will pay
for Iraq’s debt to the “squawkers”.
Scott A
(1) I think we need another analogy.
| |
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 is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
