Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-05-2010, 11:02 AM
 
938 posts, read 1,225,762 times
Reputation: 185

Advertisements

.....I think it's safe to say that we can write off any debt owed to the FED for those wars as cited under Odious Debt...read here:

Odious debt

In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them(as in the FED) and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion.

The doctrine was formalized in a 1927 treatise by Alexander Nahum Sack, a Russian émigré legal theorist,[citation needed] based upon 19th Century precedents including Mexico's repudiation of debts incurred by Emperor Maximilian's regime, and the denial by the United States of Cuban liability for debts incurred by the Spanish colonial regime. According to Sack:
When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself(the FED), to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state(USA). This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders' knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.[1]
Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International (an environmental and public policy advocacy organisation in Canada), and author of Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World's Environmental Legacy, has stated that:
by giving creditors an incentive to lend only for purposes that are transparent and of public benefit, future tyrants will lose their ability to finance their armies, and thus the war on terror and the cause of world peace will be better served.
A recent article by economists Seema Jayachandran and Michael Kremer has renewed interest in this topic.[citation needed] They propose that the idea can be used to create a new type of economic sanction to block further borrowing by dictators
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2010, 12:22 PM
 
938 posts, read 1,225,762 times
Reputation: 185
I guess nobody wants to touch this one....lol... hamsters on the wheel I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 12:30 PM
 
5,764 posts, read 11,591,134 times
Reputation: 3864
It's not a realistic option.

Repudiating our debt would make it impossible to borrow more money, which would basically make it impossible to pay for the federal government, including the military.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 12:50 PM
 
768 posts, read 1,084,050 times
Reputation: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
It's not a realistic option.

Repudiating our debt would make it impossible to borrow more money, which would basically make it impossible to pay for the federal government, including the military.
And that is a bad thing beacause?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 12:53 PM
 
768 posts, read 1,084,050 times
Reputation: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Horsemen View Post
.....I think it's safe to say that we can write off any debt owed to the FED for those wars as cited under Odious Debt...read here:

Odious debt

In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them(as in the FED) and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion.

The doctrine was formalized in a 1927 treatise by Alexander Nahum Sack, a Russian émigré legal theorist,[citation needed] based upon 19th Century precedents including Mexico's repudiation of debts incurred by Emperor Maximilian's regime, and the denial by the United States of Cuban liability for debts incurred by the Spanish colonial regime. According to Sack:
When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself(the FED), to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state(USA). This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders' knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.[1]
Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International (an environmental and public policy advocacy organisation in Canada), and author of Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World's Environmental Legacy, has stated that:
by giving creditors an incentive to lend only for purposes that are transparent and of public benefit, future tyrants will lose their ability to finance their armies, and thus the war on terror and the cause of world peace will be better served.
A recent article by economists Seema Jayachandran and Michael Kremer has renewed interest in this topic.[citation needed] They propose that the idea can be used to create a new type of economic sanction to block further borrowing by dictators
Interesting. Thank you for researching this Horsemen. I do hope we get some thoughts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 12:54 PM
 
938 posts, read 1,225,762 times
Reputation: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Consent Withdrawn View Post
And that is a bad thing beacause?

you word thief!!...lol..you took the EXACT words outta my mouth..lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 12:58 PM
 
768 posts, read 1,084,050 times
Reputation: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Horsemen View Post
you word thief!!...lol..you took the EXACT words outta my mouth..lol
Great minds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 01:04 PM
 
418 posts, read 485,826 times
Reputation: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Consent Withdrawn View Post
And that is a bad thing beacause?
We are the main perpetrator of war and destruction around the world, when we're done who's going to carry the torch?!?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 04:51 PM
 
938 posts, read 1,225,762 times
Reputation: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyfacedjenkins View Post
We are the main perpetrator of war and destruction around the world, when we're done who's going to carry the torch?!?!
China. and I heard they get Medieval on that ass..lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top