Should the debt carried by the developing nations be cancelled?

  • Debt relief SHOULD be given

    Debt relief should be given. If debts are not canceled, the developing nations will become poorer. Society moves on, right? Well, as the developing nations become poorer, developed nations become richer. Then, the developing nations will not be able to compete with such high up and wealthy nations.

  • I believe the United Nations should cancel any debt carried by developing nations in order to help their citizens economically.

    A developing nation will merely stay 'developing' as long as it carries the crippling debt with which it is saddled. If the United Nations canceled these debts, it would allow developing, third-world nations to have time to grow economically, and help all its citizens prosper. As a helping hand to those in need, the United Nations should cancel the debt of most poor, developing nations.

    Posted by: BrownDustin82
  • Yes, those debts should be cancelled, because they were incurred by despots who never intended to repay them.

    Most of the developing nations have serious debt burdens. Many of these debts were run up by dictators and corrupt governments decades ago, and the people never benefited. Other loans were actually pushed on countries by former colonial powers. Nearly all of them are so high now that they are logically nearly impossible to repay without bankrupting the developing nations. The West should remit these debts because they are unjustly punishing people who did not take them on in the first place, and who need the money for much more important things.

    Posted by: R3yGoobIe
  • Debts developing nations owe are so minuscule it's more beneficial to the world economy to cancel it than expect them to repay it.

    Developing nations have been used and abused for decades. Their economies have been linked with that of industrialized nations mostly in ill faith, incurring debts they could never possibly pay off which in return enslaves them to the other nations. Canceling their debts will allow them some form of independence to first world intervention.

    Posted by: RayEar
  • They should be given a fair and equal opportunity to compete at par with the developed countries of the world.

    2004 World Bank/IMF study found that in countries receiving debt relief, poverty reduction initiatives doubled between 1999 and 2004. Tanzania used savings to eliminate school fees, hire more teachers, and build more schools. Burkina Faso drastically reduced the cost of life-saving drugs and increased access to clean water. Uganda more than doubled school enrollment.

    Posted by: WeaverAloin
  • Cancelling debt is a good tool that more prosperous nations can use to help developing nations. The key is those developing nations must take positive steps to change the directions of past that have lead to the current problems.

    I don't believe that cancelling debt for developing nations without some clear guidelines would be good. But with clear guidelines it is a very good tool that more prosperous nations can use to help developing nations. The key is that the nations must take steps to change the past directions within their countries that have lead to the current problems. Once they have demonstrated a clear commitment to change then I believe it is very appropriate to forgive some of that debt.

    Posted by: TasticBran
  • Nations should be responsible for their historical debt since the world economy depends on every nation paying their debt.

    Every nation on this earth is responsible for its actions whether they be military, social or economic. The world's economy is a fragile thing as shown true by the current economic recession that the world is going through. It's imperative to both nations and individuals to pay off their debt. The banking system requires the prompt payment of debts or else it will implode. Therefore nations should be responsible for their historical debt.

    Posted by: VampMarce
  • No it should not

    No it should not because people need to carry their own regardless if they just starting out. The world is a cold place and people need to realize that they can not things for free otherwise they should have never tried to start a new nation in the first place and they should not want charity.

  • The debt should be greatly reduced, but help should also be provided to find ways to pay it.

    They should have the debt restructured, and have it paid in economic gains, such as an increase in jobs that would count towards a lower interest rate. The undeveloped nations should have help to take care of their people, and work together to make a true global economy. They should receive technology, teachers, and expert professionals, instead of money.

    Posted by: DisillusionedGilberto67
  • I do not believe that the debt of developing countries should be cancelled, since effective debt management is an important part of running a country.

    Not only do I think it is important for a developing country to keep their debt, so they can effectively learn to manage it as they grow, but I think cancelling debt from developing countries would discourage developed countries from investing in them.

    Posted by: ToughEfrain26
  • I don't think the debt should be canceled, as it would be unfair.

    When a developing country owes money to other countries, it should be repaid. When a country owes a debt, they need to pay it back to ensure that they don't put the other country under, while only worrying about the own selfish needs of their country.

    Posted by: SeriousNestor34
  • I disagree, because doing that would set a bad precedent.

    If the debt carried by developing nations were cancelled, then later on in their development, or even after they have finished developing, they would feel it would be possible for their debt to be cancelled again. This might even affect other nations asking for their debt to be cancelled, by seeing it happening in other countries.

    Posted by: RobustMarkus66
  • Debt carried by developing nations should not be cancelled because it would just open up a whole other can of worms.

    It is wonderful that the US is willing to help out wherever they can, however, I do not feel that the debt to the developing nations should be cancelled because there would be an issue as to who is considered a developing nation. It would be hard to draw the line and the countries that just miss it would be quite upset and could cause problems. I do feel we should give them some breaks though.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • The debt carried by developing nations should not be cancelled.

    Developing nations should pay back their debt. Many developing nations are rich in natural resources, such as gold, minerals and oil. With proper management, developing countries could pay back their debt easily. Instead of being corrupt and increasing their personal wealth, the leaders of these countries should properly manage the country so that the citizens' standard of living would improve and the debt of the countries could be paid.

    Posted by: ArturoM
  • Developing nations should not have their debts canceled, because first-world nations don't have infinite resources either.

    While it is certainly true that developing nations are less able to afford debt, the fact is that canceling their debts will leave their creditors in the lurch. What should be done is for their debts to not accrue interest, which will still allow the creditor nations to recoup some of their loaned money, while at the same time not crippling the developing nations with massive debts.

    Posted by: OsmoDemon
  • Waiving off a loan or canceling the debt would create a bad precedent. Countries should pay what they owe.

    If the debt which has been given in the past to the developing nations is canceled or written off, then it would create a bad precedent. After all, no money should be taken as `Easy Money' and the developing nations thus must pay back their loans; however in case of emergencies like a natural disasters, the debt should be rescheduled or a refinancing could be arranged but they MUST pay back the loan eventually.

    Posted by: babyphatgurl
  • The debt of developing nations should not be cancelled or the nations may come to depend on this type of behavior in the future.

    Every nation was, at one time or another, considered a "developing" nation. Each of them has had to pull itself up by its bootstraps and get to the point that it is now. If other nations step in and relive a developing nation of its financial obligations, where is the growth? On a small scale, if a child's parents bail the child out financially, cleaning the slate so to speak, what has the child learned? The answer is that nothing is learned. A person or nation in debt has to learn the correct strategies to budget and plan for the future. A financial bailout provides no lessons and ultimately places the nation back in the position it was in before the assistance.

    Posted by: P0nyCare

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-03-26T06:34:38.557
In poor countires debt repayment should be banned!!!!!
i think debt repayment should be cancelled because poor people cant pay and i am saying it only for the poor people not the rich countires because if the poor countries work and work hard they earn the money for themsleves but no because they give the money to the government and it is not fqair on the would you feel if you were one of that person?