All third world debt should be dropped

With countries struggling to pay back the loans they are not attending to their economies with enough care. This leads to recession/inflation which adversely affects the population.

they should negotiate

It is clear to see that the countries to whom the debts are owed do not need the money, and that it could be better spent on proving a better standard of life for the citizens of the debtor country.

Really you’d let people die on a matter of principle.

The population of the debtor countries are suffering because of the debts. The debts mean higher taxes, less money spent on public services and an unstable economy.

All the world religions together have MORE than enough money to cancel all world debt and poverty, the government doesn’t even have to do anything. The churches need to practice what they preach, take a step of faith and do what their doctrines tell them to and give up their money for the greater good, instead of handing out small amounts and not really getting anywhere.

It is irrelevant that the governments of the debtor countries may have known what they were signing up for. The citizens of said countries, the ones who are suffering most, didn’t have a say in the decision.

Money is not lent to third world countries unconditionally- it is lent under conditions such as the implementation of structural adjustment plans, forcing governments to accept privatisation of national industries such as water. This often results in a situation where the price of essential things such as water increases massively so the citizens can’t afford to pay and end up living in worse poverty than before. A non-repayable loan, still with conditions relating to democracy etc (although the IMF and world bank have often lent money to military dictatorships, such as that of Argentina 1976-1983) would free third world countries from constraints such as privatisation and allow their economy to develop in a way that would benefit its citizens rather than foreign companies such as those selling water.

Surely the richer countries should be looking to help out the poorer ones? The world is growing smaller with live worldwide news coverage and international travel becoming easier. Surely in these global times we can’t stand by and let the poorer nations suffer?

This is fairly evidently empirically false and logically flawed. On the contrary, cancelling debt removes the need to pay future money – money which is raised by politicians from taxes from the general population. Cancelling debt removes the demand for that money, so taxes need not be as high, benefiting the general populace. Humanitarian aid, on the other hand, is a transfer of money into the country, as such it can actively be stolen by those in the distribution network who are corrupt. Money that starts with the population and has to be taxed from them is evidently less vulnerable to theft that money that starts (on entering the countries) with the elites in the country’s distribution networks and may never reach the population in the first place.

It wouldn’t be necessary for them to do this if the world economy didn’t discriminate against poorer, relatively under-developed countries in the way that it does.

We should drop third world loans and instead offer non-repayable support, meanwhile working to make the global economic system fairer for everyone.