An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
But government debts are something different. There is a deliberate anarchy that’s been imposed, especially since World War II, to prevent a discussion of governments writing down debt.
What Hudson isn't saying is why? - what is more important and more especially true since WWII: There isn't any mechanism - explicitly - for enforcing such government debt, even if a country is stupid enough to incur major amounts in a currency it doesn't control and doesn't have a damn good business plan for earning (in which case, why incur it?).
In the old days you could go to war, and nations did. Now they don't, not for such reasons, not since the 190s at the latest IIRC. It's a war crime now. George Soros has recently noted this obvious fact- few others. There's a reason he has a few pennies. And since there is and can be no enforcement, the nonsensical game and deceit goes on. Enough defaults, enough Grexits, enough Argentinas, maybe just a couple - and these poor nations shut out of the international debt market - would realize that makes them richer, not poorer!
Also: PERIES: Michael, is there a precedent set for an odious debt case involving a nation?
HUDSON:. The closest precedent was in the 1920s for German reparations debt, and for Inter-Allied arms debts stemming from World War I.
omits the major - and not obscure case of Taft's Tinoco Arbitration, opinio juris that pretty much solidly put the concept (before the name had been coined) into law, though explicit, direct applications have been rare since then. Odious debt has come up as a respectable concept at some International Law Commission conferences producing draft treaties too. His other examples are well worth citing too of course, probably more direct for what he is talking about. His stuff on Keynes etc is interesting. If only the consciousness, which was present, universal back then due to people like Keynes - had been more exactly put into law. It would have made a difference now, but that is a bit like asking the authors of the Bill of Rights to have written the Civil War Amendments too.
1 comment:
But government debts are something different. There is a deliberate anarchy that’s been imposed, especially since World War II, to prevent a discussion of governments writing down debt.
What Hudson isn't saying is why? - what is more important and more especially true since WWII: There isn't any mechanism - explicitly - for enforcing such government debt, even if a country is stupid enough to incur major amounts in a currency it doesn't control and doesn't have a damn good business plan for earning (in which case, why incur it?).
In the old days you could go to war, and nations did. Now they don't, not for such reasons, not since the 190s at the latest IIRC. It's a war crime now. George Soros has recently noted this obvious fact- few others. There's a reason he has a few pennies. And since there is and can be no enforcement, the nonsensical game and deceit goes on. Enough defaults, enough Grexits, enough Argentinas, maybe just a couple - and these poor nations shut out of the international debt market - would realize that makes them richer, not poorer!
Also:
PERIES: Michael, is there a precedent set for an odious debt case involving a nation?
HUDSON:. The closest precedent was in the 1920s for German reparations debt, and for Inter-Allied arms debts stemming from World War I.
omits the major - and not obscure case of Taft's Tinoco Arbitration, opinio juris that pretty much solidly put the concept (before the name had been coined) into law, though explicit, direct applications have been rare since then. Odious debt has come up as a respectable concept at some International Law Commission conferences producing draft treaties too. His other examples are well worth citing too of course, probably more direct for what he is talking about. His stuff on Keynes etc is interesting. If only the consciousness, which was present, universal back then due to people like Keynes - had been more exactly put into law. It would have made a difference now, but that is a bit like asking the authors of the Bill of Rights to have written the Civil War Amendments too.
Post a Comment