Should developed countries cancel debt of developing countries?

Topic:
Global Debates

19 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
53% of users

  • Developed countries should cancel the debt of developing countries; interest makes the accountability excessive.

    By dismissing the debt that developing countries have accrued, developed countries can ease the financial burden of already strained governments and communities. Those countries could then focus on redirecting money that would otherwise be going towards paying interest on large debts into improving infrastructure, education, etc. Ultimately, the benefits of increased productivity would be reaped by all parties in terms of trade and research.

    Yes MellowGarfield

  • Countries that are financially stable should help other less stable countries, in order to create a more united world.

    It seems like every nation is striving for "world peace", and more ways to unite the world's nations. By helping each other eliminate debt, the world's countries can work together to create a better living situation for all the world's people.

    Yes MixedCornell

  • I believe developed countries should cancel the debt of developing countries because it is good for the health of the world economy.

    If it is possible to do so without causing significant harm to their own economy, I believe developed countries should cancel the debt of developing countries. Developing countries moving past their debt and becoming a real presence in the global economy is good for everyone. In the long run, I think countries will benefit more from a healthier world economy.

    Yes elliso23

  • Yes, because developed countries canceling the debt of developing countries would be a benefit to everyone.

    If the developed countries cancel the debt of the developing countries, then you can allow the countries to grow. When they grow, you can further your business with them and allow yourself to make more money off of them in the future.

    Yes LudicrousCaleb80

  • Yes, we should cancel their debt, especially if we had used them in the past for our benefit.

    Most developing countries were once under the control of the already developed countries, and therefore deserve a break in getting up to par. Additionally, in the end, the faster they become educated, the sooner we as Americans are better off in no longer needing to support their basic needs. We should extend to them what others have extended to us.

    Yes daveyxh

  • If I, as a person, am responsible for my debt, then I expect others to pay theirs as well, including even less well-off countries.

    If we were to allow countries to drop their debt to us, or other developed countries, we are setting a bad example to our citizens that debt does not matter. The current situation with credit cards, and us spending beyond our means, are great examples. If a less developed country needs a break, they can pay us back in other ways.

    Yes KareemC

  • It is in the interest of all countries, developing or developed, to cancel the debt of developing countries.

    The debt of developing countries should be forgiven because the massive proportion of their wealth that is given over to debt and interest payments are hindering the ability of these nations to invest in their infrastructure, public health systems, and their people's education. This leads not only to continued suffering but to fewer trading opportunities for other nations. Wealthier countries with developed economies offer other countries better goods and services and can buy more of those countries' own exports. When debt is forgiven and these poor countries become more economically dynamic they also tend to become more stable. This discussion could also be expanded to note the legacy of colonialism and the dubious economic models on which many loans and aid packages were designed, often proving counterproductive and destabilizing.

    Yes M4I4cFeIine

  • Yes, debt should be canceled so they could give other countries a chance to be developed and not owe money. They could put those funds towards development.

    I think well established countries should let smaller, undeveloped countries have a free pass when it comes to debt. The developed country was, at one time, undeveloped itself and had to start building itself up somewhere. It is nice to get a break in life and if a country could become developed thanks, in part, to other countries canceled their debt, they could someday pay it forward for another country. This way, development would continue across the world and there may be more peace between countries.

    Yes I33Iess

  • To benefit the global community, the debt of developing countries should be canceled by developed countries.

    By continuing to expect developing countries to pay there debt in full to already developed countries, we place them in a downward spiral that is difficult for them to recover from. When developing countries show a trend toward political and economic stability, forgiving or reducing there debt assists in encouraging the stability to continue. Also when new financial assistance is given, we can be assured that this money is going to the needed areas instead of relieving past debt.

    Yes 5h4n3Got

  • Most of that debt is generating interest in Swiss bank accounts, why hold current populations liable?

    Loans to the Third World were overwhelmingly absorbed into the bureaucracy or private pockets of those nations. Much of the rest was spent on large projects with little specific benefit, such as building dams but not power lines or military projects. The current population should not be held financially liable for debt incurred by prior dictators. We should forgive all of this debt. In return, however, we should agree not to loan any more money to these nations. Like telling a drunk that you will not give them another drink, these nations often took loans to fund reckless national projects other than infrastructure. If the debt is forgiven, then agree to never loan money to them again.

    Yes Pir4And
Voice Your Opinion
No
47% of users

  • Cancelling debt because they are not developed yet is wrong, because they borrowed money, and they are using it, so why should we not expect them to pay it back?

    Giving money to developing countries is just like investing money in a stock. The country is developing, so its economy is growing, and they should be earning more money to pay back the developed countries that helped them get there. Just because they are worse off than the developed countries, that is not an excuse. They would have been even more worse off without the developed country's help.

    No SpiritualRobt99

  • There is no reason why developing countries should get a free ride.

    When the United States was a developing country, one of the best ways that we were able to build our reputation and strength as a nation was by actually meeting our obligations. The same principle applies with people on a small level. And it will only help developing countries when they meet their obligations to already developed countries.

    No MariaR

  • Governments should not cancel the debt, but they should not be allowed to raise interest rates excessively

    Canceling the debt of developing countries is not an end-all. At most, it can be a part of a larger foreign aid payment. What is more important is that developed countries stop trying to balance their budgets by raising the interest rates of loans made to developing countries to punitive rates. It should be agreed among the developed countries that an interest rate cap be adhered to.

    No RaymoCanyons

  • This encourages wrong behavior in the developing countries.

    And renders them to think that if the remain "developing" they will keep receiving these such benefits. Developed countries have their own problems finacially.

    No Anonymous

  • Developing country's debts should not have their debts to developed countries cancelled, as they would no longer receive future assistance if their debts were held without security of payment.

    If the debts that developing countries held to developed countries were to be cancelled, developing countries would see absolutely no benefit. While developing countries may feel more secure temporarily that they are no longer indebted to others, they would not be able to receive assistance in the future and would thus lose out overall. Developed countries would no longer be willing to offer loans to developing countries if that debt would have a large chance of once again being cancelled in the future. Thus, letting developing countries build debt is comparable to students building up debt to earn their education; the investment pays of many times over for the lender and the debtor.

    No T3ddDemon

  • Developed countries should not cancel the debt of developing countries because developed countries don't have any money and a debt is a debt.

    I don't believe that developed countries should cancel the debt of developing countries because most developed countries don't have any money in the terrible economy we are in, and if a debt is canceled, why would anyone or any country ever loan them money again? You make a promise to pay a debt and that is your obligation.

    No MycCra2ii

  • Debt cancellation in and of itself should not transpire for developing countries.

    The notion of canceling the debt of developing nations by developed nations represents and absurd concept. It is often said that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. This statement, no doubt, represents factual information. Unfortunately, the next logical question seldom gets asked: Why is this the case? In most cases, the wealthy have made responsible and effective decisions that have resulted in their favorable circumstances. By contrast, the poor frequently make bad judgments while looking for others to clean up their mess. The same is true on a larger level when it comes to nations of the world. Instead of seeking simple debt cancellation, nations can look to promote their economies, employ policies favorable for investment and growth, offer incentives in exchange for some forgiveness, and make the most effective use of natural resources available to them within their borders.

    No snuggle muffin

  • It should not be the responsibility of developed countries to relive the debt of countries that are not developed.

    Undeveloped countries should not get themselves into debt if they can not afford to get our of debt .Credit should not be awarded to foreign countries if they can not afford to pay back the debt that they owe. Less fortunate countries need a bargaining chip in the global game of resources because without it they can not be competitive on a global scale.

    No R3ubHockey

  • Developed countries should not cancel debt of developing countries.

    I am all for helping other countries in a time of need. However, there has to be some kind of repercussions to keep countries in need honest. If a country could receive money without any repercussions then what is to stop them from asking for it in a non crucial situation? If you think about it in the context of someone borrowing money from you personally, it may be a little easier for people to understand. I guess if there is no possible way, ever, that a country will be able to repay their debt then an acceptable agreement between countries could come about.

    No w00tboycomic
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Should developed countries cancel debt of developing countries?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource