Whereas some economists argue that international debt forgiveness for poor countries merely establishes perverse incentives, Joseph Stiglitz argues that heavily indebted countries are often reflective of 'odious debts & odious rulers'. according to Stiglitz there is a strong case to say that such countries should not have to repay their national debts and that in fact they should be paid compensation by their lenders. where do you stand on this question?
2006-09-11 05:35:41 · 3 answers · asked by Gill 1 in Social Science ➔ Economics
why don't you do your own homework?
2006-09-11 05:44:50 · answer #1 · answered by a_liberal_economist 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
where there has been regime change there's a good case for it. Suppose Zimbabwe gets rid of Mugabe. Should the new govt pay his debts?
2006-09-14 04:01:57 · answer #2 · answered by MBK 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think he's right, but the USA are not one of them that should not have to repay, even though their present gouvernment is certainly odious.
2006-09-11 05:49:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋