off topic economy question

[Morsigil]

In general terms it is accepted that the world benefits hugely from lending/borrowing money. You're going to have a very hard time trying to convince anyone otherwise.

Huh, wow. I'd say that's grossly innacurate. The Bretton Woods system and it's structural adjustment program has played a key part in probing developing countries of their economic wealth. People are still starving make no mistake.

Probing? Robbing maybe?

I don't think anyone made the argument that everyone in the world has food in their belly because of lending.

[TheMan]

north korea

The least those koreans dont let anybody give them anyhting or let people enther the country i say no

[dagrimreefah]

@dagrim; that's right, I don't see if you're disagreeing with my post in any way since they are both very much the same.

No, I agree with you. I'm just emphasizing the beneficial role of the free market, i felt you left that part out.

[Endora]

@Endora; I don't see what you mean by 'probing developing countries of wealth'?

Much of this is due to economic growth, in which a major part is played by lending and borrowing money. The countries that are 'starving' or poor or often like this due to lacking governmental structure or stability, which makes lending money to these countries a risk.

By probing I mean that the IMF and the World Bank has used loans as an unequal bargaining leverage to implement a whole bunch of draconian neoliberal economic policies and austerity measures to the benefit of the west. Many of these policies have opened up the developing world to easy manipulation by multinational corporations, whilst simultaneously enforcing economic 'liberalization' of nascent industries which has allowed subsidised western markets to flood the market, kill those industries and eliminate potential competition. Certainly many of these unstable governments and corrupt politicians have played a role in their own states demise, but international financial systems have been quick to jump at the chance to exploit this as well. I think whilst theoretically the act of lending and borrowing money might be a good thing, in reality having such an unequal bargaining power can force states to do things that are incredibly unbeneficial. (see Malawi where the IMF forced them to sell a large portion of their grain reserves to repay a debt, under threat of cutting off desparately needed future aid payments: the result a famine in the months following leading to seven out of eleven million people incredibly low on food, and many resultant deaths). There are too many 'human' factors at play especially in a lending system where creditors are theoretically required to be responsible but are able to inflict gross moral hazards. (See the global financial crisis and the Latin American Debt crisis) It's an incredibly multi faceted problem, something really needs to be done to make global lending responsible and accountable.

[teengames]

@Endora; I don't see what you mean by 'probing developing countries of wealth'?

Much of this is due to economic growth, in which a major part is played by lending and borrowing money. The countries that are 'starving' or poor or often like this due to lacking governmental structure or stability, which makes lending money to these countries a risk.

By probing I mean that the IMF and the World Bank has used loans as an unequal bargaining leverage to implement a whole bunch of draconian neoliberal economic policies and austerity measures to the benefit of the west. Many of these policies have opened up the developing world to easy manipulation by multinational corporations, whilst simultaneously enforcing economic 'liberalization' of nascent industries which has allowed subsidised western markets to flood the market, kill those industries and eliminate potential competition. Certainly many of these unstable governments and corrupt politicians have played a role in their own states demise, but international financial systems have been quick to jump at the chance to exploit this as well. I think whilst theoretically the act of lending and borrowing money might be a good thing, in reality having such an unequal bargaining power can force states to do things that are incredibly unbeneficial. (see Malawi where the IMF forced them to sell a large portion of their grain reserves to repay a debt, under threat of cutting off desparately needed future aid payments: the result a famine in the months following leading to seven out of eleven million people incredibly low on food, and many resultant deaths). There are too many 'human' factors at play especially in a lending system where creditors are theoretically required to be responsible but are able to inflict gross moral hazards. (See the global financial crisis and the Latin American Debt crisis) It's an incredibly multi faceted problem, something really needs to be done to make global lending responsible and accountable.

Soooo... are you trying to say global lending dosent work? (Only in 10th grade I don't do well with big words >.>)

[Endora]

Soooo... are you trying to say global lending dosent work? (Only in 10th grade I don't do well with big words >.>)

tl;dr Global bankers are scum.

[Wolfang]

@Endora; I don't see what you mean by 'probing developing countries of wealth'?

Much of this is due to economic growth, in which a major part is played by lending and borrowing money. The countries that are 'starving' or poor or often like this due to lacking governmental structure or stability, which makes lending money to these countries a risk.

By probing I mean that the IMF and the World Bank has used loans as an unequal bargaining leverage to implement a whole bunch of draconian neoliberal economic policies and austerity measures to the benefit of the west. Many of these policies have opened up the developing world to easy manipulation by multinational corporations, whilst simultaneously enforcing economic 'liberalization' of nascent industries which has allowed subsidised western markets to flood the market, kill those industries and eliminate potential competition. Certainly many of these unstable governments and corrupt politicians have played a role in their own states demise, but international financial systems have been quick to jump at the chance to exploit this as well. I think whilst theoretically the act of lending and borrowing money might be a good thing, in reality having such an unequal bargaining power can force states to do things that are incredibly unbeneficial. (see Malawi where the IMF forced them to sell a large portion of their grain reserves to repay a debt, under threat of cutting off desparately needed future aid payments: the result a famine in the months following leading to seven out of eleven million people incredibly low on food, and many resultant deaths). There are too many 'human' factors at play especially in a lending system where creditors are theoretically required to be responsible but are able to inflict gross moral hazards. (See the global financial crisis and the Latin American Debt crisis) It's an incredibly multi faceted problem, something really needs to be done to make global lending responsible and accountable.

First off I'd like to point out that paragraphs were invented for a reason. The way you write your wall of texts is horrible.
Secondly it's completely normal to make demands of someone before lending them money. Just like insurance companies make sure you aren't about to die before giving you a life insurance.
Lending and borrowning money isn't just theoretically good, it's good. Rich people who don't need to use their money immediately lend money indirectly to poorer people who need it. This way they can afford a house, or start a business, which will make them richer in turn. Obviously there's risk involved for the lender's money, which is why it's completely normal for the lender to demand certain qualifications of the borrower.
The crisis is caused because the people that lent money indirectly, did so without requiring high enough expectations of the borrowers, but using the crisis as an excuse to stop lending money is incredibly stupid. It's easy to point out the cases where the money lending system has failed, countries in africa, or people in the US, but these shouldn't even have been lent money in the first place. But all the billions of people whom have benefited of borrowing money at some point in their, you seem to have forgotten about.

[TheMan]

@Endora; I don't see what you mean by 'probing developing countries of wealth'?

Much of this is due to economic growth, in which a major part is played by lending and borrowing money. The countries that are 'starving' or poor or often like this due to lacking governmental structure or stability, which makes lending money to these countries a risk.

By probing I mean that the IMF and the World Bank has used loans as an unequal bargaining leverage to implement a whole bunch of draconian neoliberal economic policies and austerity measures to the benefit of the west. Many of these policies have opened up the developing world to easy manipulation by multinational corporations, whilst simultaneously enforcing economic 'liberalization' of nascent industries which has allowed subsidised western markets to flood the market, kill those industries and eliminate potential competition. Certainly many of these unstable governments and corrupt politicians have played a role in their own states demise, but international financial systems have been quick to jump at the chance to exploit this as well. I think whilst theoretically the act of lending and borrowing money might be a good thing, in reality having such an unequal bargaining power can force states to do things that are incredibly unbeneficial. (see Malawi where the IMF forced them to sell a large portion of their grain reserves to repay a debt, under threat of cutting off desparately needed future aid payments: the result a famine in the months following leading to seven out of eleven million people incredibly low on food, and many resultant deaths). There are too many 'human' factors at play especially in a lending system where creditors are theoretically required to be responsible but are able to inflict gross moral hazards. (See the global financial crisis and the Latin American Debt crisis) It's an incredibly multi faceted problem, something really needs to be done to make global lending responsible and accountable.

First off I'd like to point out that paragraphs were invented for a reason. The way you write your wall of texts is horrible.
Secondly it's completely normal to make demands of someone before lending them money. Just like insurance companies make sure you aren't about to die before giving you a life insurance.
Lending and borrowning money isn't just theoretically good, it's good. Rich people who don't need to use their money immediately lend money indirectly to poorer people who need it. This way they can afford a house, or start a business, which will make them richer in turn. Obviously there's risk involved for the lender's money, which is why it's completely normal for the lender to demand certain qualifications of the borrower.
The crisis is caused because the people that lent money indirectly, did so without requiring high enough expectations of the borrowers, but using the crisis as an excuse to stop lending money is incredibly stupid. It's easy to point out the cases where the money lending system has failed, countries in africa, or people in the US, but these shouldn't even have been lent money in the first place. But all the billions of people whom have benefited of borrowing money at some point in their, you seem to have forgotten about.

I think that was a incredibly polite troll.

[TeckXKnight]

Wait, people seriously think, even theoretically, that lending and banking is bad for anyone? It's a system of monetary distribution that facilitates growth, commerce, and business. Unless you have a superior system of monetary or goods distribution available to you then commercial banking is what keeps your economy from stagnating and hyper-stratifying. Marxism and Communism have shown, historically and theoretically, to be very poor at actual allocation of resources so they do not qualify as superior.

Even basic societies, those that are egalitarian and do not have monetary stratification, would stagnate and literally die off without lending. Now, I know you're going to say that by definition no one should have anything more than anyone else in an egalitarian society as you share everything but it's not the sharing that you're thinking of. It's more, 'I'm giving you this now so you do not starve and in the future when I'm in your shoes you better do the same for me', than altruism.

In short, lending stipulates economic growth and expansion of both commercial and industrial industry. Where lending fails is the same as where any other business can fail, in that if they provide a service that consumers cannot afford to buy. Toxic loans that are generated by failed businesses, excessive risks, and excessive debt are what end up hurting both the economy and the banking industry. As long as banks don't loan too much money to people who produce toxic loans then life is beautiful.

[Potjeh]

Yeah, banks give you +25% city gold output and 2 merchant slots.