There have been a lot of calls for governments to cancel the debts of third world countries over the last few decades. A downside of these calls is that they make governments very unwilling to invest in third world countries, as there is a growing expectation that you won't get the money back. The calls to cancel debts tend not to discriminate between exploitative loans made to fraud ridden dictatorships and sound investments that help kickstart new economies and lift people out of poverty. Governments can have huge amounts of money to invest and for various reasons may not want to invest the money locally. At the same time there are usually calls for government aid. This amounts to treating the symptoms rather than the cause and helps to promote a welfare mentality on a global scale. Activists discourage investment that might help kickstart sustainable industries while promoting the unsustainable, short term solutions.

wee

tallowood wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 7:25pm:

Es gibt immer einen Frosch in einem düsteren Teich.

I wish I knew enough about economics to properly weigh up the pros and cons of such an action. The mega-rich have contributed to growth as well as exploited the third world, while at the same time demolished labour and industry in the west. Who really deserves a hand?