Topic: If They Can Pay off their Debts, Why Don't They? - page 2. (Read 1152 times)

When there is a strong economical relationship between countries, even if war starts, business still stays the business. For example, my country had war with Russia, lost its territories and people died but still, there is a very strong economical bond because we are neighbors and get cheap food and natural resources from Russia.
Btw I don't understand this debt thing: Greece, Italy and Spain have one of the highest debt burdens but people from my country immigrate to work in those countries while my country isn't in debt burden. This makes me to think that debt isn't as bad as they say. The only country where life is bad is Brazil from list.

There are so many reasons for it, for example, if a country has some political clashes between their politicians or something in between their country's politics, then this should be also a reason.
The other reason is a relationship with different countries, which means if a country has a strong relationship with a country and between them there comes a clash, then the exchange of their export and imports between the countries stops. So, this should be also a reason.
The third reason is the country's increasing population if the population of a country increases then they don't want to pay their dept.
Because there will be more spending in a country on their health care, the security of their country, the pensions they are offering to its country's people, etc. So, I think these will be the reasons for the countries which have, but they didn't want to pay. There will be many more, but I have discussed some here.

If a country has the ability to repay the debt, why won't that country repay the debt!  In fact, these amounts are so high that no country has the ability to pay all the debts at once. Because reserves are allocated for each sector of each country.  It is not possible to repay the loan with all the money.  Moreover, the amount of reserve money of many developing countries is so low that they will pay off the debt, on the contrary, they are on the way to bankruptcy.  And the developed countries may not feel the need to repay the debt because they prefer to invest that money in some other sector.  Maybe developed countries have the capacity to bear the burden of interest on these loans

the thing with government borrowing money because they wants to develop as much as they can while also paying off their debts, so they can't just pay all in one sweep because they also have other things to take care of even though if its capabilit they surely can get rid of their debts instantly.
its the complicated things with macroeconomic because simply put too much things need to be considered therefore sometime some decision might not make sense for individual but its the best for the country.
having loan from other countries and giving loan to other countries also helps grow bilateral connection across each country, you know there's always reason behind every countrys decision.

I think they still have more development to take care of than paying off the outstanding debt. Of course, this is always thought through carefully considering that some of the countries you mentioned are the countries with the greatest powers. Of course they also have to develop their progress with existing finances to maintain the strength of their country. therefore they are not too burdened by debt.

If a well developed countries can still be in debts having built up their country to standard then what will the masses think of the country.
It's just like a father catering for his children and  making sure they get the best,so he will go extra miles to ascertain that level.

So this said countries can go in debts because they feel their country need s to be upgraded with certain infrastructure although they may not be having what it takes to enlarge their territories so they end up  doing what they intend to .

Good take here and an even better suggestion/advise regarding having debt and how we can try to avoid it. It is of course true that no matter what scale the debt is, it will cause a problem for anyone especially when payments season comes. For the rich, payment for a debt may come at a time that they are too comfortable with the flow of their money that they overlook the debts that are piling up on their door, while for the poor no matter the situation in the end debt is always a problem to deal with. However, while you two make outstanding points, the OP is talking about debts of countries which is a little different than our personal debts. Government debts often provides partnership with other countries as well as financial services for a country's project for development. Hence, as those projects are made and provides the country with profits, they are able to slowly and steadily pay for their debt either through money or products which ensures that the initial budget of the government is not jeopardize.

When you say " Crazy debts " that sounds pretty big. This is one thing that the OP and others didn't realize. They think it's easy to pay a debt like that. We can't even pay a small debt so how much more a big one right?

GDP isn't progressive at all times but it can only for those who are rich countries. Same goes with the salary. Lump sum payment are indeed tough, though I think it also has a benefit. But in my case, I still prefer the other way around of paying. Having a debt is still tough, no matter what is your status in life. So much better if we can avoid it as possible. The key is to have a proper plan, save, and invest so that we will always have a money to be used for something.

I have simple questions:
After the change of apartheid, most companies in South Africa were nationalized. The white population is less than 10% and they live a very limited life, the power/government is in the hands of South Africans, the country has the richest resources...
BUT...
- After the abolition of apartheid, most major cities in South Africa were abandoned by the white population, only Cape Town partially escaped this fate, their crime rate rose to one of the highest in Africa. Whites moved into localized enclaves like Sandton. Johannesburg and Durban, once the richest and most prosperous cities, have become some of the most dangerous on the planet, gradually declining....
- The average income of the population is approaching the lower end of the global average.
- Of South Africa's 54.9 million population, only 18 (not exactly) million people are able-bodied. The unemployed are 23% (in 2008).

Question - what is the "side" of "whites keep robbing the country" ? One option - corrupt government and disenfranchised population .... Perhaps this is a problem that should be solved and not to look for guilty parties....

A good government that has a vision to develop a country is not born instantly because it requires ability and skills for them to demonstrate these qualities to voters before nominating themselves as leaders. Other incentives are also quite influential in the positions given to existing agencies, so that the government can collectively work together to develop a more advanced country.

Retaliation for winning during self-nomination can destroy the foundation for building the character of the position given, so that the position given is not in accordance with their skills and qualities. We often see that the direct election system can lead to a concept of the state that does not work properly because in it there is retribution that must be carried out by the elected leader. There is no idea of developing a country if the leader's concept is like this and when economic conditions get worse they don't have any ideas to solve it and in the end society suffers even more.

They cant in short, you have to consider all the debt that is owed to pensioners in the yield on their debt and alot of that equates to government liability also for national pensions.     Japan for example has a horrible demographic imbalance where the working population are minor to those wanting to retire, the debt is being paid via various means of juggling the monetary supply.  Ultimately currency value declines to service the deficit budgets of most major debtor countries.    If a country has a growing working population then its fair to say they can repay the debt in future but at present that money would be deployed only owed, giving a yield meanwhile which to some is useful in itself.
  All debts can of course be paid if you confiscate all the wealth and assets of a country, thats government overreach and what some fear will occur.  To a limited extent we have seen bank accounts taken over to stop a government default, the top 20% removed that kind of thing its rare and destructive behavior but quite a feasible scenario imo

One thing that is certain is that the Borrowing Country will be controlled gradually through the initial conditions agreed upon.

Even though it is able to pay off debts, the State chooses to avoid the greater risks that could arise. Like having to raise taxes which will automatically make people miserable, and will lose the trust of the debt-giving country or the debt-giving bank, in the future it may not be given again when it is needed. In terms of other benefits if you don't pay off debts, namely for investment, the government certainly has plans that are divided into term periods. Usually it will be invested in development projects, so that it will generate greater income for the State.

It's as if the state did it on purpose because that's how a country can continue to develop and even debts and receivables must be done by a country to continue cooperation so it cannot be denied that these debts and receivables are part of the needs or cooperation that is being established. by that country.
However, this does not mean that some countries cannot pay their debts, so they continue to take on debts to cover their debts or only pay the interest on their debts.

It is not the country that gives loans to others but banks. These are good debts and for good reason. As we can see, developing countries are committing huge debts because that serves as their capital for economic development and projects which they believe that the return is enough to pay off the debts and make another one. No country has no debt and this is probably because the demand is quite high and there is no enough capital to cover them all urges them to do that in order to achieve their plan. Like in running a business, sometimes we need to borrow money for the sake that we can provide what we have to do to grow our business.

The government's decision to lend money from other countries is quite a wise decision if a country is in dire need of their economic conditions along with other conditions as you mentioned. Some of the things you have mentioned are the most important parts that must be developed by the government in every country because the economy, education, infrastructure, health and others are all things that are really needed by citizens. So it wouldn't be wrong for the government to lend money to other countries to make things develop with payment methods that don't burden the loan taker.

It would be naïve to think that they stopped at 1994, that was the point up until they used their official power, now they are using their unofficial power, slavery ended in USA 150+ years ago, do you really think blacks have the same rights even today? Let alone 20-30 years after it ended?

I can easily tell you that 30 years after apartheid ended, the whites did not started to be equals to blacks there, and in this case it was the whites that came in there, and they are still abusing Africa a lot. This isn't even just about certain nations, all of west still take all the resources from Africa and makes the profit while paying them peanuts. The moment Africa says no, and uses their own resources, they will be much better.

That's right, because in the end before making a debt there must be an agreement regarding deadlines, guarantees and interest because surely both parties also know better and are unlikely to provide unreasonable debt if the initial agreement is not fulfilled.

So I think a country's debt is actually not something bad and should be avoided if the country that has debt knows what to do with the money they get but sometimes things like this can happen for those who have the qualifications as "developed countries" because usually for developing countries sometimes they are even difficult to do that because many of them are indeed unscrupulous people who only seek personal gain and include it from the debt that their country does.

This is why it's important to know how to do good governance so that when you become someone influential in government, you know what to do.
Many people want positions in government but not many of them know how to do so that the government in the country they lead can advance, especially for economic problems.
This is not an easy thing to do, but because they think that jobs, especially in government, are wet fields for personal gain, they will not think of anything else because their own greed is in control, considering that their intention is only to enrich themselves, not to advance the government.

I agree with you, plus it is best to know that good debt management can help a country's capacity to invest in their economic future for the sake of education, infrastructure, health care, agriculture, and even for the people. The limited revenue countries have sometimes cannot be enough for their proposed projects that are made for the betterment of the country, hence their government chooses to borrow money from other countries.

Looking at the problem from this perspective to see that microeconomics is not easy to solve, when the balance that we are maintaining is unstable, I know that large countries are forced to borrow money in return. Other benefits help them maintain and operate their own economy.
The problem needs to be looked at when countries have enough capacity to resolve their debts, I don't think so, when there are many things that are difficult to balance in value, and things are not always peaceful in these solutions. decided.

I'm not someone who understands much about economics.
Have you ever read that the United States has almost failed to pay its debts, so even though they are a developed country or could be said to be rich, there is still the possibility of defaulting on their debts, and as far as I know, these debts are not entirely debts from the state but also debts from private parties.
Debt is not because they are experiencing financial difficulties but is also a strategy for countries to depend on each other so that no country can exist without another country, except for poor countries which are in debt because they need it or like a trap from rich countries to take their natural resources because they know they will have difficulty paying.