Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
The only reason I see for *not* abolishing the debt and giving more aid is that many of the countries in Africa are run by corrupt despots who have been diverting aid money (whether they are loans or not) to their own coffers for years (a large amount of the money raised by LiveAid went to feed and equip the Ethiopian army rather than the starving people; The Democratic Repoublic of the Congo -- formerly Zaire -- has about 5 billion in debt but in the years that they have accumulated this debt their leader has amassed a personal fortune equal to about 4 billion... these are just two examples amongst many).
Abolishing the debt is just one side of the equation. The other side is responsible, democratic governments (with emphasis on responsible).
|
I don't understand how your statement results in opposition to the elimination of public debt. It seems to speak to the opposite conclusion: despots have taken aid money and enriched themselves with it. Yet, we still require the aid money to be repaid by the public even after those despots have been overthrown (or still exist).
Either way, the public is paying back money certain persons have stolen. How do you conclude that is proper?
Why should we not dispense with debt incurred from corruption if the public purges the corrupt official?