Legitimate celebration of white culture?

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Well, that’s where you and I would disagree. As with any open-ended debt we can find ourselves perpetually paying it, or choose to call it paid. I would choose the latter.

.

Hmm. Interesting.

Of course all the Africian nations have open ended debts to the world bank.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

As with any open-ended debt we can find ourselves perpetually paying it, or choose to call it paid. I would choose the latter.

I would choose the latter as well...once we had made a serious effort to pay something back, which in my opinion we haven't done. There has to be an end to payback, but equally there should be a start. Screwing a country less is not payback for past crimes.

If you can point to one country and show how we have made all reasonable efforts to undo the harm we have done, but where we still get the whole "White Mans Burden" type of argument, I'll accept that perhaps I'm being a little harsh, and should take things more on a case-by-case basis...but I honestly can't think of a single nation that would fit the bill.

jc

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

Of course all the Africian nations have open ended debts to the world bank.

Actually they don't. The debts are finite, which is more than can be said of the apparant debt that we are expected to pay them, according to some here.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually they don't. The debts are finite, which is more than can be said of the apparant debt that we are expected to pay them, according to some here.

They are to all extents and purposes open. The countries will never be able to pay them off, and can't develop infrastructure to create industry to increase their GNP to allow them to increase debt repayment , so they're stuck.

The bulk of repayments merely covers the interest on the loan. It may not technically be an open debt but realisticaly it is.

pickarooney

mycroft wrote:

Gays, Blacks and Jews were persecuted and oppressed to different degrees over the last 500 years.

Name one group that has never been persecuted.
Catholics, Protestants (Huguenots), Jews, Christians, Muslims, Indians, Aborigines, women, men, children, blacks, whites, Chinese...
How far back does the statute of limitations extend?

mycroft

pickarooney wrote:

Name one group that has never been persecuted.
Catholics, Protestants (Huguenots), Jews, Christians, Muslims, Indians, Aborigines, women, men, children, blacks, whites, Chinese...
How far back does the statute of limitations extend?

The three groups you picked were Jews, Blacks, and Gays, three groups whose persecution was still occuring in recent history, into the latter half of this century. I sincerely believe they've a better right to have a gay pride day seeing in many western countries their sexuality could (and can) lead to prison terms. I think they've got a better case to be allowed to chant "we're here we're queer get used to it" rather than "We're here we're huguenot get used to it"

pickarooney

"We're Huguenot and you are not, get used to it", surely?

The 500 years was your own figure, I just used that.

Gay Pride parades - how many gay people feel these events are representative of them? Anyone here have a strong opinion either way?

Stabshauptmann

The Corinthian wrote:

Yes. Europe.


White Culture would theoretically be common European culture - classical music, opera, renaissance literature, ballet and architecture. Perhaps even a Vienna ball. On that basis White Culture, when identified as European, does exist. Of course, the sad reality is that if one were to see a celebration of White Culture it would probably involve a lot of Klansmen and line dancing; which other than not been very representative of White Culture is ironically as cultural as a yogurt.

Nice theory but I dont subscribe to it. There would be no point in labelling european culture white culture, the name wouldnt distinguish it. labelling it European culture would distinguish it from American, Asian etc but white wouldnt.
On that logic white culture is only a relevent or meanigfull name when applied to White americans because it draws a distinction between them and other groups suc as blacks or hispanics.

So if that is what white culture is difined as, which is what I always thought it was, is there a problem with celebraing it?
Well we would have to identify what is it you are celebrating. Superiority, power, being in the majority?? I honestly dont know what there really is to celebrate but if its those things then I cant understand why you'd feel the need to rub ppls noses in it. Its a lot like Orangemen, they're not celebrating being British, they are demonstrating a percieved superiority.

mycroft

pickarooney wrote:

"We're Huguenot and you are not, get used to it", surely?

The 500 years was your own figure, I just used that.

Gay Pride parades - how many gay people feel these events are representative of them? Anyone here have a strong opinion either way?

Not being the only gay in the village I can't comment. I'm sure there are gay people who cringe, just as we cringe when we see some of the more absurd St Patricks day celebrations.

I wouldn't object to Huguenot pride day, but as we've seen in the north, celebrations of your own culture (glorious 12th) is often subverted by those with more sectarian agendas.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

They are to all extents and purposes open. The countries will never be able to pay them off, and can't develop infrastructure to create industry to increase their GNP to allow them to increase debt repayment , so they're stuck.

Show us your maths and the facts behind them.

Necromancer wrote:

Nice theory but I dont subscribe to it. There would be no point in labelling european culture white culture, the name wouldnt distinguish it. labelling it European culture would distinguish it from American, Asian etc but white wouldnt.

If you’d bothered reading what I’d posted, you’d find that I do not disagree with that sentiment. I just played Devils Advocate in so far as one could defend any possible interpretation of White culture - otherwise this entire thread would have just ended up a one-sided politically correct love-in.

mycroft

The size of the debt trap can be controlled to claim all surplus production of a society, but if allowed to continue to grow the magic of compound interest dictates it is unsustainable. One trillion dollars compounded at 10 percent per year become $117 trillion in fifty years and $13.78 quadrillion in one hundred years, about $3.5 million for every man, woman and child in the Third World. Their debt is 50 percent greater than this and has been compounding at twice that rate -- over 20 percent per year between 1973 and 1993, from $100 billion to $1.5 trillion [only $400 billion of the $1.5 trillion was actually borrowed money. The rest was runaway compound interest]. If Third World debt continues to compound at 20 percent per year, the $117 trillion debt will be reached in eighteen years and the $13.78 quadrillion debt in thirty-four years.

-- J.W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth 2, (Institute for Economic Democracy,

Quotes from here

As well as;

Argentina owed $128 billion in debt [in mid 2001]. Normal interest plus the premium amounted to $27 billion a year. In other words, Argentina's people didn't net one penny from the $20 billion in “bailout” loans. The debt grew, but none of the money escaped New York, where it lingered to pay interest to U.S. creditors holding the bonds.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

Quotes from here

I asked for maths and facts, not a tirade of disassociated and unsubstantiated figures from a partisan think-tank.

As for Argentina, it is interesting to note that she could well be a genuine case where she may be mathematically be able to pay off her debt. However, the exception does not prove the rule, and simply saying that it has occurred once does not mean that it is a common situation.

I would also note, in the case of Argentina, that she has not been subject to colonial exploitation (at least no more than the US) and that European imperialism can hardly be held accountable for her plight. Or are we now changing the goalposts again?

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

I asked for maths and facts, not a tirade of disassociated and unsubstantiated figures from a partisan think-tank.

As for Argentina, it is interesting to note that she could well be a genuine case where she may be mathematically be able to pay off her debt. However, the exception does not prove the rule, and simply saying that it has occurred once does not mean that it is a common situation.

I would also note, in the case of Argentina, that she has not been subject to colonial exploitation (at least no more than the US) and that European imperialism can hardly be held accountable for her plight. Or are we now changing the goalposts again?

Hmmm, for starts partisan think tank is pretty much an oxymoron, you can claim bias from pretty much any think thank. But those facts speak for themselves.

Tell you what I'll go home dig out all the economic stuff I have from Oxfam. I'm not much as I'd love to going to go into a long discussion about the IMF structural loans, and WTO during work hours. While I'm sure you'd be fascinated I know my boss would object, and I' haven't the necessary links on my work PC.

The Argentina figure was put forward as a simple example of how while handing bailout loans are worthless while debt repayment are high.

Furthermore Corinthian I'm not going to continue this debate if you can't also respond to my statisitics with statisitics of your own to support your assertions, and have no interest in discussing this with someone who feels they're only playing devils adovcate.

Stabshauptmann

The Corinthian wrote:

Show us your maths and the facts behind them.

If you’d bothered reading what I’d posted, you’d find that I do not disagree with that sentiment. I just played Devils Advocate in so far as one could defend any possible interpretation of White culture - otherwise this entire thread would have just ended up a one-sided politically correct love-in.

Just reread what I typed and I was about as clear as a yogurt. Let me try again:

The theory you put forward suggested that European culture could be called/ labelled white culture. I dont believe it can as the name wouldnt make any distinction from other cultures.

I should have only quoted that part and not your whole post but quick reply is my prefered method of reply.
Then seperated the next part about the clan.
Obviously you dont approve of the clan, but you do suggest that they somhow have a perception in their minds that the have some sort of european roots in their culture. As you pointed out in a later post, race and culture are not always directly linked so while there are ansestorial roots the cultures of Europe and White America are too distantly related to be considered family.
I then went back to the original post (i realise you have moved on since then) and asked since white culture does not mean european culture, what is it they are celebrating. I dont see anything to celebrate or anything celebratory about what they do.

That was my post.

You say that I should have read your later post before replying where you said

I proposed that an interpretation of White could be European as trying to link culture to race is not very believable.

Now I dont know maybe I didnt get enough sleep last night but I read that as meaning you said White culture could mean European culture. Please explain how I took you up wrong. If you said this for the purpose of having a debate then I still have done nothing wrong, I just argued that European culture cannot be called White culture.

Stabshauptmann

The Corinthian wrote:

I asked for maths and facts, not a tirade of disassociated and unsubstantiated figures from a partisan think-tank.

As for Argentina, it is interesting to note that she could well be a genuine case where she may be mathematically be able to pay off her debt. However, the exception does not prove the rule, and simply saying that it has occurred once does not mean that it is a common situation.

I would also note, in the case of Argentina, that she has not been subject to colonial exploitation (at least no more than the US) and that European imperialism can hardly be held accountable for her plight. Or are we now changing the goalposts again?

When ppl mention America in these discussions they are refering to the unfair and undue and sometimes illegal and undemocratic infuence america has on certain third world countries, especially south america.
The USA has a long and documented history of influencing the leadership and policies of S. American countries.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

I asked for maths and facts, not a tirade of disassociated and unsubstantiated figures from a partisan think-tank.

Convenient, considering the dearth of sources you've supplied for your own assertions in this thread.

Apparently its okay for you to suggest a Hollywood movie as a source to back up your assertions, but offering information from a think-tank (partisan or not) is immediately dismissable as not being factual!!!

Its one thing to play Devil's Avocate...but the whole "I'll make my allegations however I like, but even if you provide a source, it has to be one I approve of before it constitutes any sort of basis to back a statment" line.....thats not Advocacy for anything. Thats just an attempt to avoid dealing with the point raised in preference to nit-picking about the precise definition.

Tell ya what...why don't you prove your earlier assertions of homogeneity of European culture to standards that you are holding others to. Just to show that you can, and that there's no hypocracy. And remember...if others don't like your sources, they don't count.

jc

The Corinthian

Necromancer wrote:

The theory you put forward suggested that European culture could be called/ labelled white culture. I dont believe it can as the name wouldnt make any distinction from other cultures.

No, I suggested that arguing for something as nebulous as White Culture was not really tenable and the closest we might come to something like that is European Culture. I even pointed out that attempting to define culture on purely racial lines simply does not hold. In short, I changed the topic.

When ppl mention America in these discussions they are refering to the unfair and undue and sometimes illegal and undemocratic infuence america has on certain third world countries, especially south america.

Please explain how this is realistically relevant to Argentina - which of course is what I was discussing.

bonkey wrote:

Convenient, considering the dearth of sources you've supplied for your own assertions in this thread.

Apparently its okay for you to suggest a Hollywood movie as a source to back up your assertions, but offering information from a think-tank (partisan or not) is immediately dismissable as not being factual!!!

Even you would have to admit that there is a difference between hard facts and sociological correlation.

The matter of Third World debt and whether it is unpayable and thus a principle reason for the failure of the Third World as a whole to become self sufficient can be largely determined in terms of accountancy. Either a Third World nation can pay a debt or not. Either all or even most Third World nations are in this poverty trap or not. It is that simple.

So far, we’ve seen little or no evidence of either of these assertions. However, all of these nations have publicly published (or even estimated) debts, public receipts and expenditures. So if it is evident that that they cannot (even with restructuring of public expenditure) pay off these debts and that this is the case with all or even most Third World nations, then you have a point. Otherwise it’s just something else that if you repeat often enough people will believe.

On the other hand, arguing the homogeny of European culture is not as easy to define - there is no GDP for art, no credit balance for architecture. As such a Hollywood movie (which unlike MyCroft’s data was not exactly looking to push an agenda) is perfectly acceptable evidence as long as you remember that it will not be conclusive. After all, we have enough difficulty defining what culture is in the first place. As such I would be the first to believe that it is a subjective (and those never truly proven) truth that cannot be applied to a question of accountancy.

So, yes, it is OK to suggest a Hollywood movie as a source to back up your assertions, but offering information from a think-tank (partisan or not) is immediately dismissible as not being factual.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Even you would have to admit that there is a difference between hard facts and sociological correlation.

Not in the manner that you set out to show, no.

The matter of Third World debt and whether it is unpayable and thus a principle reason for the failure of the Third World as a whole to become self sufficient can be largely determined in terms of accountancy.

Yesss....but you dismissed the writing a highly-regarded economics expert who specialises in this field as "partisan". So it seems to be a case that its not just "accountancy", but rather "accountancy that The Corinthian agrees with", or some similar qualification?

Either a Third World nation can pay a debt or not. Either all or even most Third World nations are in this poverty trap or not. It is that simple.

Sure its that simple....if what you look at is "can this country physically generate enough money to pay off the debt, especially if we choose not to consider the impact on the country of doing so, and whether or not channeling its money in this manner would change the ability to continue generating the required revenue".

I would point you back at your earlier "economic ruin" comments. Where did you prove that it would be economically ruinous? Where did anyone prove that its economically ruinous?

Not only that, but if it would it be equally economically ruinous for a third-world-country to pay back its debt, does that make the debt unpayable? Where do you draw the line? How much hardship is acceptable before we reach a threshold where we can say "unpayable"? How much can a nation be suffered/allowed to regress as a result of paying off a debt before we can say "unpayable"?

And how do we reconcile wherever you choose to draw that "unpayable" line with your previously-outed notion that because it would be ruinous to try paying back these countries what we owe them, we somehow have a right not to bother?

So, despite your "hard facts" claim, it would seem that the determination of whether something is payable or not is not simply a factual assessment. Indeed, an awful lot of the determination is based on issues which themselves will depend on the ideology of the person answering them.

Now...given that everyone has an ideology, and you've already dismissed one set of expert opinions because they have an ideology - or (in your own words) are pushing an agenda - how exactly does one determine payability as a matter of fact?

So far, we’ve seen little or no evidence of either of these assertions.

and what evidence we have seen has just been dismissed because you don't like the source that its coming from...not because you can show that anything it says is actually incorrect.

On the other hand, arguing the homogeny of European culture is not as easy to define

Which should mean that you have to work harder to make your case....not less so....even if it is actually not as easy to define.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Yesss....but you dismissed the writing a highly-regarded economics expert who specialises in this field as "partisan". So it seems to be a case that its not just "accountancy", but rather "accountancy that The Corinthian agrees with", or some similar qualification?

Except, he’s not a highly-regarded economics expert. By his own admission he “takes a different view from most economists” - which would hardly imply that they are going to regard him highly (so it’s not simply a question of "accountancy that The Corinthian agrees with"). Further examination of his writings would seem to indicate that his theories are more about ideology than economic science.

Not only that, but if it would it be equally economically ruinous for a third-world-country to pay back its debt, does that make the debt unpayable? Where do you draw the line? How much hardship is acceptable before we reach a threshold where we can say "unpayable"? How much can a nation be suffered/allowed to regress as a result of paying off a debt before we can say "unpayable"?

I don’t disagree with these questions. However you and others are not really asking them, but simply taking as fact that that line has already been drawn and that these debts are, across the board, immoral. Not one proponent of this view has entertained this, while I have repeatedly pointed out that this may be the case with some debts.

Now...given that everyone has an ideology, and you've already dismissed one set of expert opinions because they have an ideology - or (in your own words) are pushing an agenda - how exactly does one determine payability as a matter of fact?

As you do with any economic data - with a generous pinch of salt.

and what evidence we have seen has just been dismissed because you don't like the source that its coming from...not because you can show that anything it says is actually incorrect.

That’s a perfectly valid reason to reject data as being truthful and fair. Or would you accept this as valid evidence in the debate on evolution?

pickarooney

Rather than open a new thread, can I just demonstate my complete lack of understanding of economics with the following questions:
Are there any countries who are not in debt? If not who do they all owe money to? How come some first world countries can continue to borrow and prosper while in debt to the tune of trillions when third world countries are being crippled by debts of similar or lesser magintude?

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

I don’t disagree with these questions.

But a moment ago you asserted that determination of repayability was hard fact. Now you're agreeing that its not...

So I will now ask again why it has a burden of proof that your homogeneity posts did not require?

I don’t disagree with these questions. However you and others are not really asking them, but simply taking as fact that that line has already been drawn and that these debts are, across the board, immoral.

And we get back to me yet again asking where I have said this, because once again you are misrepresenting what I have said.

The closest I have come is asking you to name a single country where we had done everything reasonable to redress whatever wrongs we had done, stating that I believed there was none. Note - I did not at any time limit that exclusively to national debt issues.

Not one proponent of this view has entertained this, while I have repeatedly pointed out that this may be the case with some debts.

So by asking you to name a country where we have done all that could reasonably be expected of us.....I'm not entertaining the notion that such a country may exist? I see.

And there was me thinking I was asking you to show me where I had gone wrong, if indeeed I had...

jc

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

But a moment ago you asserted that determination of repayability was hard fact. Now you're agreeing that its not...

I agree that they are questions that should be posed. I disagree that they are rhetorical which is how you appear to pose them.

So I will now ask again why it has a burden of proof that your homogeneity posts did not require?

Both require proof; however one is always going to be a subjective proof while the other, being a question of accountancy can be examined objectively.

And we get back to me yet again asking where I have said this, because once again you are misrepresenting what I have said.

Not at all. You propose as a given that Third World debt is immoral in your arguments.

So by asking you to name a country where we have done all that could reasonably be expected of us.....I'm not entertaining the notion that such a country may exist? I see.

Oh, there was I thinking we were discussing Third World debt and not Europe’s redress for past wrongs - you’re kind of changing the goalposts again, JC.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

I agree that they are questions that should be posed. I disagree that they are rhetorical which is how you appear to pose them.

They're not posed rhetorically. They're questions which cannot be objectively answered. If I'm wrong, then please point me at the uncontested, objective analysis which tells you how to determine payability, because as far as I'm aware any such decision will hinge on any number of subjective decisions.

while the other, being a question of accountancy can be examined objectively.

No, it cannot.

Accountancy on its own cannot tell you where you should and should not spend your money in the event of a shortfall. It can only tell you that there is a shortfall. More importantly, accountancy can only tell you that after you've applied subjective economic theory to analyse what your costs are going to be and so on...

So...again we're back to the same simple point: there is simply no definition of "payability" which is objective, despite your insistence.

But....to take a leaf out of yoru own book...if you think there is such a proof, then please offer it...to the level you've been demanding of others for "objective" issues. Until then, I think we can take your approach to the issue and decide that you're wrong as you haven't proven it.

Not at all. You propose as a given that Third World debt is immoral in your arguments.

No, I don't.

I propose (and proposed) that we still owe a debt to the Third World for the wrongs we have inflicted on it. You asked me whether or not the nullification of their national debt and having no more influence on them would satisfy that, and I said I'd let you know when it happened...because my issue was that we had rarely/never tried helping these countries in a non-self-serving way.

I propose (and proposed) that there is no nation we can point to and say "we've done all that can be resaonably asked of it", and have asked for evidence to the contrary.

Nowhere have I proposed that Third World Debt, in its entirety, is immoral.

Oh, there was I thinking we were discussing Third World debt and not Europe’s redress for past wrongs - you’re kind of changing the goalposts again, JC.

Huh? You seem to be forgetting the bit where we were discussing the refress of past wrongs and you specifically asked me about curing third world debt as a solution to it which is how we got onto this "sub-point".

Also, given that you've taken my points about the lack of redress for past wrongs, and recast them as me proposing that Third World debt is immoral.....its even harder to see how I'm shifting the goalposts...unless by "shift" you mean "putting them back to where I (The Corinthian) had taken them from".

jc

mycroft

As promised.

---

http://www.wdm.org.uk/presrel/current/costofdebt.htm

WDM and JDC released figures today showing that Gordon Brown could easily find room in the budget to foot the bill. They calculate it would cost the treasury a total of £1.3bn as a one off payment to cancel the UK's share of all remaining debt owed by the most indebted developing countries to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. If the chancellor were to spread the cost over the next ten years until 2015 the cost is just £2.85 per year for each UK citizen - about the same as the cost of a pint of Guinness in Gordon Brown's local pub (£2.73 in the Red Lion, Whitehall).

For example Zambia in 2003 spent £313m on debt repayments. After receiving the maximum available debt relief under existing commitments, in 2005 it will pay £130m. Debt payments have been more than halved under the available debt relief however it is worth noting that in 2001 Zambia's education budget was £44m and its health budget was £66m.

---

Kinda scuppers your argument that cancelling the debt is economic hari kari

---

http://www.wdm.org.uk/presrel/current/g8debtrelief.htm

Jubilee 2000 estimated that 52 developing countries had $375 billion of debt, of which $300 billion was unpayable. G8 leaders in Cologne in 1999 promised to write off $110 billion of unpayable debt. The British government estimated that $62 billion has been committed to debt relief. "Did the G8 Drop the Debt" report by the Jubilee Debt Campaign estimates that only $36 billion has been delivered on to date.

---

http://www.wdm.org.uk/cambriefs/debt/debtG8.doc

---

If you reject these figures corinthian I would like you to present your own to back up your assertions.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

They're not posed rhetorically. They're questions which cannot be objectively answered. If I'm wrong, then please point me at the uncontested, objective analysis which tells you how to determine payability, because as far as I'm aware any such decision will hinge on any number of subjective decisions.

I’ve already suggested a means of making such an ascertain. All I’ve received back is the axioms that all Third World debts are unplayable and that these are the root for the failure of these countries to develop. The only proof for these that has been presented has essentially been a repetition of these axioms.

It can only tell you that there is a shortfall.

That’s what we’re ultimately discussing - an irreconcilable shortfall for an insurmountable debt. Or not.

mycroft wrote:

Kinda scuppers your argument that cancelling the debt is economic hari kari

Now back it up for the rest of the creditor nations.

Jubilee 2000 estimated that 52 developing countries had $375 billion of debt, of which $300 billion was unpayable.

How about you pick a non-partisan source for your ‘estimates’?

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

How about you pick a non-partisan source for your ‘estimates’?

How about you pick ANY source to refute them?

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

I’ve already suggested a means of making such an ascertain

Except your suggestion completely ignores how you analyse what constitutes "non-essential" and "essential" costs.

Is a loan repayable if repayment would mean shutting down the health system? What about a 50% reduction? What about a 10% reduction? What about if it simply meant not improving a horridly sub-standard health-system? or limiting the improvement to a certain level.

Now, apply the same question to education, infrastructure, and everywhere else.

Remember - you were the one who said that such "weak" proofs are fine for subjective arguments but objevctive ones required more stringent proof. So...suggesting a framwork won't cut it...you've said its an already-existing-method, objective-in-nature type of assessment. So....where's the formula? Where's the definition of how its done? Where's the proof of your allegation???

Otherwise, surely we have to accept that its a subjective process, and - as such - any conclusions drawn from it require no stringent proof.....again, using your earlier-proferred logic as to what does, and does not, require what type proof.

Nowhere have you addressed how anyone can objectively makes these decisions qualitatively and subjectivelly, you've just insisted that its an objective process.

Well...if its an objective process, then your own standards would require you to prove it, rather than offering some wishy-washy vagaries as you're criticising others of doing about the other side of the same issue.

So...show that yoru argument is actually stronger. Show that you actually have the proof of the claims you're making, and that you're position isn't just as based on axioms as you're dismissing others for being.

All I’ve received back is the axioms that all Third World debts are unplayable and that these are the root for the failure of these countries to develop.

No, thats not all you've received back...its all you want to protray as having been received back.

The only proof for these that has been presented has essentially been a repetition of these axioms.

As opposed to the proof you've offered for your "its an objective assessment" ??? One of the proofs you have bene offered is proof that its not an objective assessment...by me. Its objective in nature, and....here we go again....by your own standards therefore doesn't require much more than a restatement of axioms. After all, if a Hollywood movie was good enough as "proof" for a subjective claim....

Now back it up for the rest of the creditor nations.

Why should he? You've shown no inclination whatsoever to back up any of your claims that you claim are objective.

How about you pick a non-partisan source for your ‘estimates’?

Hang on a sec...

A moment ago, these calculations were objective in nature. Now you're saying that a partisan source isn't acceptable. Why? Are they not using an objective formula???? How does partisanship allow you to be subjective with something which isn't subjective in nature?

jc

mycroft

This

The international financial community recognized in 1996 that the external debt situation for a number of low-income countries, mostly in Africa, had become extremely difficult and influenced the prospects for economic development. For these countries, even full use of traditional mechanisms of rescheduling and debt reduction (Naples terms) - together with continued provision of concessional financing and pursuit of sound economic policies - may not be sufficient to attain sustainable external debt levels within a reasonable period of time and without additional external support. A group of 41 countries in such a situation and potentially considered for the HIPC initiative was defined by the international financial institutions.

from here