Perhaps it is time to
look at some basic defintions for a term that will soon be quite prevalent...
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, should
not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be
personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In
some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed
under coercion.
Defintion
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 theSpanish 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, to suppress a
popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the
entire state. 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]
interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a
popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the
entire state. 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]
Modern impacts
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.
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.
In a Policy Analysis for
the Cato Institute, Patricia Adams suggested
that the debts incurred by the Iraqi state during the rule of Saddam Hussein are odious as the money borrowed was spent on weapons, instruments of repression and palaces.[2]
that the debts incurred by the Iraqi state during the rule of Saddam Hussein are odious as the money borrowed was spent on weapons, instruments of repression and palaces.[2]
A recent article by
economists Seema Jayachandran and Michael
Kremer
has renewed interest in this topic. They propose that the idea can be
used to create a new type of economic sanction to block further
borrowing by dictators.[3] Jayachandran proposed her new recommendations recently at the 10th anniversary of the Jubilee movement held at the Center for Global Development in Washington, D.C.
has renewed interest in this topic. They propose that the idea can be
used to create a new type of economic sanction to block further
borrowing by dictators.[3] Jayachandran proposed her new recommendations recently at the 10th anniversary of the Jubilee movement held at the Center for Global Development in Washington, D.C.
The chart you will never see at the Federal Reserve website
This is a chart you will never see at the Federal Reserve website.
It graphically shows how paper money is sold to the Federal Reserve bank for
the cost of printing (6.5 cents per paper dollar, regardless of denomination),
who in turn lends it to the nation's banks at a relatively low rate of
interest, and those banks then fractionate banked money received from
depositors by 10-fold (making money out of thin air, a.k.a. counterfeiting), and
then charge ~5% annual interest on that fractionated money.
In the current banking environment, depositors lose money via
inflation which is actually created by an increase in the money supply, and
then banks use depositors' banked money as a required reserve and make a
killing on the fractionated amount (9-fold more). Over the life of a 30-year
home loan, typically the mortgage interest will cost 48% of the total amount
paid on the home.
If the Federal Reserve had any track record of success in its mission
to control inflation (also known as the erosion of the purchasing power of your
money), it would have an image to reclaim. But it only has a record of failure.
At least it is consistent and predictable.
The public has never really paid much attention to the Federal
Reserve bank till Congressman Ron Paul pointed his finger at this secretive
bank that has resisted audits while putting a positive spin on its decades-long
inability to control erosion of the value of the U.S. dollar, self-interpreting
its own lousy track record, basking in its own self-adulation and blaming other
factors for the recent unprecedented meltdown of the American economy.
The Fed portrays the central bank as being "independent"
rather than what it really is — out of control, non-transparent, un-audited,
secretive and irresponsive to the public.
I pray, some day, the fun and games at the Federal Reserve Bank
will be demolished. It's time for America to grow up and stop trusting some
holier-than-thou bank to manage the public's money.
No comments:
Post a Comment