»

[HairyScaryMark]

Not quick in posting this but thought it important enough to do so anyhow.

Vulture Funds

In summar: Vulture Funds is the term used to describe when US buisnessmen buy the debt of some of the worlds poorest countries then sue the governments for many times the value of debt.

One of the biggest vultures is also the largest donor to the US Republican Party. Sueing foriegn governments is illegal in the US without permission from the President so it could easily be stopped.

Gordon Brown has described the vultures as 'perverse' and 'immoral'.

Report on BBC news page

Article on Greg Palast Page

Watch Newsnight Report here

[Lester Burnham]

The cases can only go through with approval from the president. Oh, and the vultures making the cash contribute financially to the Bush administration.

Why am I not surprised.

[Dave]

Okay, first of all, this is all from the BBC, so take it with a VERY large pinch of salt. Objective reporting went out the window a long long time ago with these guys. Unsurprisingly, they try to pin all the blame on George Bush, while this sort of thing's been going on for decades, under both Republican and Democrat administrations.

They also make the ludicrous statement that the "only way" Paul Singer, CEO of Elliott Associates makes his money is by suing foreign governments for debt racked up by failed administrations. They have a huge portfolio of property and other investments. Given that the company is worth around $5.6 billion, and that the BBC stated that "vultures" have together recovered $1 billion from the people who owe them money, it seems that this Greg Palast guy has his sums a bit wrong.

As a last point, can someone please explain to me why making people, governments and organisations responsible and accountable for their debts is a bad thing? Many of the creditors to the corrupt regimes were private individuals and businesses whose only chance of seeing some of their money back was to sell it to companies such as Elliott. They have the financial and legal muscle that the small creditors lack necessary to achieve a result. Yes, they make a profit, but they're a business, not a charity.

[Frosty Jack]

Originally Posted by Dave

As a last point, can someone please explain to me why making people, governments and organisations responsible and accountable for their debts is a bad thing? Many of the creditors to the corrupt regimes were private individuals and businesses whose only chance of seeing some of their money back was to sell it to companies such as Elliott. They have the financial and legal muscle that the small creditors lack necessary to achieve a result. Yes, they make a profit, but they're a business, not a charity.

If you really can't see why this is wrong, then that is very worrying.
For example the Zambia debt was originally to buy tractors. They were repaying the debt for 20 years, and now they still have to pay back at least $40m. How is that fair? Do you really think Zambia ever received anything close to $40m? This has nothing to do with repaying what they were given. This is being held over a barrel and squeezed dry just because they can. Global loan sharks.
Surely you can see that's wrong?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Frosty Jack

If you really can't see why this is wrong, then that is very worrying.
For example the Zambia debt was originally to buy tractors. They were repaying the debt for 20 years, and now they still have to pay back at least $40m. How is that fair? Do you really think Zambia ever received anything close to $40m? This has nothing to do with repaying what they were given. This is being held over a barrel and squeezed dry just because they can. Global loan sharks.
Surely you can see that's wrong?

Isn't that the same deal home owners get every time they apply for a mortgage? Okay, I can see that they maybe didn't get the best deal, but the fact is their government was still responsible for the debt. Neither the original creditors nor the ones now in possession of the debt ever made any claims towards philanthropy, so why should they liquidate an asset worth millions of pounds?

I'm not saying I would do what they're doing, but I can see why they're doing it.

[RockAustin]

Originally Posted by Dave

Isn't that the same deal home owners get every time they apply for a mortgage? Okay, I can see that they maybe didn't get the best deal, but the fact is their government was still responsible for the debt. Neither the original creditors nor the ones now in possession of the debt ever made any claims towards philanthropy, so why should they liquidate an asset worth millions of pounds?

I'm not saying I would do what they're doing, but I can see why they're doing it.

It's just another way America use their extreme capitalism to control the world. Suppress developing countries, extort those with no money, all the while building up power and claiming divine right to kill anything that doesn't conform or appears to be a threat. That is not democracy. Democracy has an equal degree of compassion associated with it.

Why let people grow rich from the misfortune of others? Not just one or two people either, whole countries.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by RockAustin

It's just another way America use their extreme capitalism to control the world. Suppress developing countries, extort those with no money, all the while building up power and claiming divine right to kill anything that doesn't conform or appears to be a threat.

Don't confuse private individuals and companies with "America". There are plenty of people using "extreme capitalism" in a philanthropic and generous manner to the people of Africa (Bill Gates, anyone?). Anyway, the people who loaned the money and provided the services didn't do so to be good democrats, they did it to earn a living.

Originally Posted by RockAustin

Why let people grow rich from the misfortune of others? Not just one or two people either, whole countries.
That is not democracy. Democracy has an equal degree of compassion associated with it.

Look at the countries that racked up these debts-Peru, Zambia, Argentina, Democratic Republic of Congo/Zaire...hardly bastions of democracy at the time these debts were created, were they? The government of America does what's right and fair for its own people (or at least it's supposed to). They are not answerable to or beholden to any other nation. Why should they be?

[Frosty Jack]

Originally Posted by Dave

Isn't that the same deal home owners get every time they apply for a mortgage? Okay, I can see that they maybe didn't get the best deal, but the fact is their government was still responsible for the debt. Neither the original creditors nor the ones now in possession of the debt ever made any claims towards philanthropy, so why should they liquidate an asset worth millions of pounds?

I'm not saying I would do what they're doing, but I can see why they're doing it.

This is not like Zambia (or whoever) just fancied building a conservatory though is it? This is money that they needed at the time, and if they had simply been allowed to pay it back when they could, albeit with a bit of interest as incentive there wouldn't be a problem. But this is simply (legal) extortion. And however 'technically legal' it may be, I'm afraid if you can't bring yourself to condemn the practice then you have very different morals to mine.
If you're a bit skint one day and need money for your lunch, I could lend you twenty quid. But then I would demand you give me all of your next pay packet in return. score...

[HairyScaryMark]

Originally Posted by Frosty Jack

If you're a bit skint one day and need money for your lunch, I could lend you twenty quid. But then I would demand you give me all of your next pay packet in return. score...

and in the case of this, your friend would buy the debt from Dave then sue him for many times it's value.

[RockAustin]

Originally Posted by Dave

Don't confuse private individuals and companies with "America". There are plenty of people using "extreme capitalism" in a philanthropic and generous manner to the people of Africa (Bill Gates, anyone?). Anyway, the people who loaned the money and provided the services didn't do so to be good democrats, they did it to earn a living.

Where does this particular company originate and who do they supply money too again? I'm not so ignorant as to separate the two, one perpetuates the other. It is built into their "American dream" and the reality of their society to allow maximum power and wealth to very few. Fine, some people give away money they amass but at an equal and opposite rate there is always someone else taking it away. They even allow that to happen to poorest of their own people.

Look at the countries that racked up these debts-Peru, Zambia, Argentina, Democratic Republic of Congo/Zaire...hardly bastions of democracy at the time these debts were created, were they?

There are huge amounts of politics involved in these situations that would take a long time to discuss. Having said that, why give a loan to a country you know will either never be able to pay the money back, is not "democratic" and will more than likely spend the money on arms? It's so you can make more money from them and to have a power over them.

The government of America does what's right and fair for its own people (or at least it's supposed to). They are not answerable to or beholden to any other nation. Why should they be?

Again, they even let their own people suffer, not only in monetary terms but socially and in isolated ignorance.