{quotes} The author started off this article with the conversation between himself and lawyer who was described as "more of an activist kind" (p1). This made me believe that their thoughts would be very similar but it struck me as to how much this woman did not know about situations that he was involved in even though she was an "activist lawyer". For example, talking about the IMF and how he wanted to abolish third world debt. The woman was confused not even knowing what IMF stood for, it was really interesting because maybe a lot of these "activist lawyers" aren't as up to speed as we would assume they would be. I mean the fact that these countries are paying back their debts three times over but never really getting anywhere because of the insane amount of interest these wealthy countries are enforcing is astounding.
The concept of debt is really interesting. He kept going to back to that woman's comment, "surely one has to pay one's debts" (p4). He gives the overwelming example of the malaria issue in Madagascar and how the government couldn't owe the IMF and therefore it had to cut its "mosquito eradication program" and that because of it many people died. You have to wonder what that means for debts. These debts cause lives. Is it really worth it for a moral victory? These third world debt countries tend to be attacked or conquered by European countries to which they are in debt. They used an example of Haiti. This country was one of rebellion by slaves and eventually freedom and human rights. But France decided to make them pay for damages leading this country back down to poverty ever since. Bringing back to the idea of what debt helps? This is an example of a moral victory and a country that could have been much more than it is today but because of that word 'debt', "Haiti has been a synonym for debt, poverty, and human misery ever since" (p6).
I think that this this quote was quite moving. The author asks, "What is the difference between a gangster pulling out a gun and demanding you give him a thousand dollars for "protection money", and that same gangster pulling out a gun and demanding you provide him with a thousand-dollar loan?" (p7). Ultimately there is not difference, or is there? The common denominator will always be the gun. Yes this gangster could let you go or he could not. He is running a "regime" and that gun is holding the power of you so he can get what he wants. It would not be a very effective regime if he never got his money would it ? Debt seems to start a chain reaction. One person owes someone something and then that brings up other people wondering who owes them. Lending money never seems to come with an sort of sympathy. It makes you wonder if the whole situation just sets up evilness. I think what the author is trying to get across is the act of "debt" loses the morality in the world. It makes people cold and unsympathetic and in a constant state of thinking people owe them something. He backs this up by saying, "the way violence, or the threat of violence, turns human relations into mathematics will crop up again and again..." (p14).
As much as I agree with him on the situation of 'debt' and how it turns people violent and unsympathetic I can't say I 100% disagree with the "activist lawyer" not because she thought of it in a moral way but because I do not see exactly how the world would work without them. If banks gave out loans and then never got paid back then what? Where would the money be? There would be essentially no more banks and no more loans right? Same thing with student loans. If we did not pay them back then would there more student loans to give? I think I'm a bit confused on his stance in terms of his idea of how exactly to control this situation. I understand the morality of it and the way we could go about 'debt' better but how exactly does he believe we should handle it?
No comments:
Post a Comment