where do you stand on Joseph Stiglitz's claim about odious rulers and odious debt?
Q. Whereas some economists argue that international debt forgiveness for poor countries merely establishes perverse incentives, Joseph Stiglitz argues that heavily indebted countries are often reflective of 'odious debts & odious rulers'. according to Stiglitz there is a strong case to say that such countries should not have to repay their national debts and that in fact they should be paid compensation by their lenders. where do you stand on this question?
Asked by Gill - Mon Sep 11 12:35:41 2006 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments

A. why don't you do your own homework?
Answered by a_liberal_economist - Mon Sep 11 12:44:50 2006

Is the World Bank killing people?
Q. The World Bank's own Independent Evaluation Group just found that Barely one in ten of its nation borrowers experienced persistent growth between 1995 and 2005 - a much smaller proportion than those who stagnated or slid deeper into poverty. The bank's own former chief economist, Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz, says this approach "has condemned people to death... They don't care if people live or die."
Asked by ToYou,Too! - Mon May 7 00:42:41 2007 - - 8 Answers - 0 Comments

A. their motto "Greed before Life"
Answered by alpha66 - Mon May 7 00:49:42 2007

Is a 3 TRILLION dollar war considered 'redistribution'?
Q. According to Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, the Iraq war is costing us $3 trillion dollars - enough to pave the entire U.S. highway system with 23.5 karat gold...three times over! He also blames part of the economic mess on the war: "The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit." "The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," he said How come the very same people who are screaming Socialism about Obama, don't care that McCain wants to continue a war that could've paid for everyone's college education in the United… [cont.]
Asked by NONAME - Tue Oct 28 09:09:28 2008 - - 9 Answers - 0 Comments

A. Well, while the rich are benefiting from the war (and everyone else suffers), it's also the rich who are paying for it with exorbitant income taxes. So, to be fair, I wouldn't call it redistributionist. Unfair? Yes. Unjust? Yes. Murderous? Yes. Unpatriotic? Absolutely. But not redistributionist.
Answered by Deo Gratias - Tue Oct 28 10:25:16 2008