What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

More goodies from the great and mighty USA...

mriko

Green Mujaheed
Veteran
'Vulture funds' threat to developing world
Meirion Jones
BBC Newsnight

Zambia's infrastructure plans could be threatened

On Thursday 15 February a high court judge in London will rule whether so-called vulture fund can extract more than $40m from Zambia for a debt which it bought for less than $4m.

There are concerns that such funds are wiping out the benefits which international debt relief was supposed to bring to poor countries.

Martin Kalunga-Banda, Zambian presidential adviser and a consultant to Oxfam told Newsnight, "That $40m is equal to the value of all the debt relief we received last year."

Vulture funds - as defined by the International Monetary Fund and Gordon Brown amongst others - are companies which buy up the debt of poor nations cheaply when it is about to be written off and then sue for the full value of the debt plus interest - which might be ten times what they paid for it.

Mockery

Caroline Pearce from the Jubilee Debt campaign told Newsnight it makes a mockery of all the work done by governments to write off the debts of the poorest.

"Profiteering doesn't get any more cynical than this. Zambia has been planning to spend the money released from debt cancellation on much-needed nurses, teachers and infrastructure: this is what debt cancellation is intended for not to line the pockets of businessmen based in rich countries."


Debt Advisory International (DAI) manages a number of vulture funds which buy up the debts of highly indebted poor countries cheaply and then sue for the original value of the debt plus interest. Zambia - where the average wage is just over a dollar a day - is one of the highly indebted poor countries which the world's governments agreed needed debt relief.

Suing

In 1979 the Romanian government lent Zambia money to buy Romanian tractors. Zambia was unable to keep up the payments and in 1999 Romania and Zambia negotiated to liquidate the debt for $3m.

Before the deal could be finalised one of DAI's vulture funds stepped in and bought the debt from Romania for less than $4m. They are now suing the Zambian government for the original debt plus interest which they calculate at over $40m and they expect to win.

Like the other vulture funds DAI refuse to do interviews but reporter Greg Palast caught up with the company founder Michael Sheehan outside his home in Virginia.

Greg Palast: "I just want to ask you Mr Sheehan - why are you squeezing the poor nation of Zambia for $40 million - doesn't that make you a vulture?

Michael Sheehan: "No comment I'm in litigation. It's not my debt."

Greg Palast: Aren't you just profiteering from the work of good people who are trying to save lives by cutting the debt of these poor nations?

Michael Sheehan: Well there was a proposal for investment. That's all I can talk about right now.

Five years ago Gordon Brown told the United Nations that the vulture funds were perverse and immoral: "We particularly condemn the perversity where Vulture Funds purchase debt at a reduced price and make a profit from suing the debtor country to recover the full amount owed - a morally outrageous outcome". But the vulture funds are still operating.

'We don't do interviews'

The London case is just one of many which are running around the world.

Newsnight went to New York to try to interview Paul Singer - the reclusive billionaire who virtually invented vulture funds.

In 1996 his company they paid $11m for some discounted Peruvian debt and then threatened to bankrupt the country unless they paid $58m. They got their $58m.

Now they're suing Congo Brazzaville for $400m for a debt they bought for $10m.

We didn't get our interview. His spokesman told us, "We have nothing to hide; we just don't do interviews".

US courts

"Jubilee Debt Campaign told Newsnight that they are calling on Gordon Brown to turn his moral outrage about vulture funds into action"
The vulture funds raise most of their money through legal actions in US courts. Those actions against foreign governments can be stayed by the word of the US President and that is where lobbying and political influence becomes important.

Debt Advisory International are very generous to their lobbyists in Washington. They have been paying $240,000 a year to the lobby firm Greenberg Traurig - although recently they jumped ship to another firm after Greenberg Traurig's top lobbyist was put in jail.

Paul Singer has more direct political connections. He was the biggest donor to George Bush and the Republican cause in New York City - giving $1.7m since Bush started his first presidential campaign.

Rudi Guiliani is the favourite to be the next Republican presidential candidate and a leaked memo from his campaign shows that Paul Singer has pledged to raise $15m for Guiliani's campaign.

Tactics

The vulture funds have teams of lawyers combing the world for assets which can be seized to settle their claims. There have also been claims of dubious tactics.

Back in Britain the Zambian case has seen much legal discussion about allegations of bribery. The Zambian legal team - led by William Blair QC - Tony Blair's brother, has argued that a $2m bribe was offered to the former Zambian President to make it easier for the vulture funds to claim their money.

They showed the court an email disclosed in the Zambia case saying that a payment to the "President's favourite charity" had allowed them to do a more favourable deal.

When we caught up with Michael Sheehan outside his house in Virginia he told us it was not a bribe but a charitable donation.

He told us, "We offered to donate debt to a low income housing initiative which was a charitable initiative which did end up building several thousand houses" before adding "you're contorting the facts, you're on my property and I would ask you to step off".

The Jubilee Debt Campaign told Newsnight that they are calling on Gordon Brown to turn his moral outrage about vulture funds into action if he becomes Prime Minister and change the law to make the Zambian case the last to appear in a British court.

from BBC Newsnight

Update here


viva fucking capitalism !



Irie !
 

genkisan

Cannabrex Formulator
Veteran
Evil fucking bastard donkeyhonking asshat fuckwads......



These people should be strung up by their testicles and used as human pinatas at a tequila and meth party.


One day I would like to see all the people like this in the world (greedy, white-collar criminal capitalist pigfuckers) tossed into a giant pig-shit lagoon and rendered into fertilizer...it's the only thing they are good fer.

Unless profit for profit's sake ceases to be the driving motive of our species, we are fucking doomed.....
 

NserUame

Member
I don't see how you can blame America for this...many vulture 'capitalists' reside in England and other parts of the UK. That'd be like blaming the entirety of the United Kingdom for the Cash for Honours debacle.

Either way, I don't see how they can sue for interest. They didn't loan the country money in 1979, so thus I don't see how they are legally entitled to 18 years worth of interest. If they bought the debt, they should only be awarded interest since the time of the transaction.
 

genkisan

Cannabrex Formulator
Veteran
I blame mono-culture farming and the advent of cities......the greed paradigm started a long, long time ago...around the same time that patriarchal control became the norm in human societies.
 

naga_sadu

Active member
Mriko,

This isin't new news. Well, our leaders in South Asia seem to think that corporatism is the way to the future. Makes you feel real cozy, don't it...

FUCK, I REALLY miss the "good old days"...you with me, commandante? Despite all that, what's sad is our people (in Asia and elsewhere) seem to be contempt w/ wage slaving instead of electing a non corporate supporting regime to power.
 

Haps

stone fool
Veteran
Corporate greed and lack of ethics is the driving force behind much of the evil in every country, and I can think of no logical way to fight it.
H
 
C

Chamba

so true Haps

but if you think now is bad, wait until those corporations do away with the "annoyance" of bribing polititians through their "charities" and just take over governing the country themselves!...it's not that far away.

who's gonna be the first country to go 100% corporate controlled?...apart from the basket cases, countries like Korea will def be one of the first to go corporate

and at least those horrible, scumbag, bribe taking polititians (and all their other faults) have a lifespan of 4 or 8 years..whereas corporate reptiles are in power for an indefinite time but are not open to any of the check and balances

here's the best comment about politics "any one who aspires to public office should forever be automatically prohibited from doing so."
 
Last edited:

tngreen

Active member
Veteran
NserUame said:
I don't see how you can blame America for this...many vulture 'capitalists' reside in England and other parts of the UK. That'd be like blaming the entirety of the United Kingdom for the Cash for Honours debacle.

Either way, I don't see how they can sue for interest. They didn't loan the country money in 1979, so thus I don't see how they are legally entitled to 18 years worth of interest. If they bought the debt, they should only be awarded interest since the time of the transaction.

from what i understand about debt collectors, when they buy your debt, they are buying the interest that goes along with it aswell.

this is absolutely insane though! they need to change it from vulture funds to spineless demon funds. some people have no conscience or morality and it makes me feel sorry for them. they will meet their judgement eventually.
 

marx2k

Active member
Veteran
How is this any different from the IMF/World Bank lending relief funds to 3rd world countried that have zero chance of paying those funds back (which is why IMF/World Bank was forced to wipe the debt of lots of African countries a few years back)

A lot of the time (read: most of the time), what's keeping countries from developing any further is they are spending most of their GDP on paying interests on loans from the IMF/Wold Bank that they can never realistically pay back.
 

marx2k

Active member
Veteran
clorox said:
eh, nothin wrong with capitalism imo

The top 1% holding onto 33% of privately held weath in America would probably agree with you.

The next 19% holding onto the next 51% would probably agree too.

Here's a good quote from my man Rutherford B Hayes...

December 4. Sunday. In church it occurred to me that it is time for the public to hear that the giant evil and danger in this country, the danger which transcends all others, is the vast wealth owned or controlled by a few persons. Money is power. In Congress, in state legislatures, in city councils, in the courts, in the political conventions, in the press, in the pulpit, in the circles of the educated and the talented its influence is growing greater and greater. Excessive wealth in the hands of the few means extreme poverty, ignorance, vice, and wretchedness as the lot of the many. It is not yet time to debate about the remedy.

Source: Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, vol. 4, Charles R. Williams, ed., 1924, pp. 261-262, 277-278, 286, 312, 354-355.
(http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116886 - if you care to read the entire text of that)
 
Last edited:

J0sh1

Well-known member
Veteran
Capitalism is a sad reality. Nothing can be done about it if the superpower's endorse it. No use in trying to educate the ignorants that just enjoy bending over to get raped. If you hate capitalism just adjust your behavior and lifestyle to work around it. Everyday I wake up and try to figuere out a way not to be a sheep consumer and contribute to this disgusting habit people are born into called capitalism. Now, if there is something I detest is people who write hate about capitalism yet at the slightest mention of removing themselves from "modern comodities" they cringe. Now that is hypocrisy. I would like to see how many capitalist haters would be willing to let go of their McMansions in the suburbs, latest model vehicles, trendy gadgets, latest fashion cloths, extremely expensive trips to the supermarkets to buy crappy food etc. If you hate capitalism so much I hope you really live the life otherwise you are just a joke.
 
Last edited:

marx2k

Active member
Veteran
J0sh1 said:
Capitalism is a sad reality. Nothing can be done about it if the superpower's endorse it. No use in trying to educate the ignorants that just enjoy bending over to get raped. If you hate capitalism just adjust your behavior and lifestyle to work around it. Everyday I wake up and try to figuere out a way not to be a sheep consumer and contribute to this disgusting habit people are born into called capitalism. Now, if there is something I detest is people who write hate about capitalism yet at the slightest mention of removing themselves from "modern comodities" they cringe. Now that is hypocrisy. I would like to see how many capitalist haters would be willing to let go of their McMansions in the suburbs, latest model vehicles, trendy gadgets, latest fashion cloths, extremely expensive trips to the supermarkets to buy crappy food etc. If you hate capitalism so much I hope you really live the life otherwise you are just a joke.

The first step is removing the salesman by tuning out and killing your TV. The obsession over disposable material goods and an unattainable lifestyle drops to almost nil within the first few weeks. (Maybe the first few months depending on how ingrained 'the game' is within the person).

Then it's a simple matter of adjusting your lifestyle to drop out of the game. Give up the car, the cell phone, the designer clothing, the weekend trips to the mall. Remove yourself completely from the self-perpetuating endless cycle of status symbol attainment.

Capitalism creates waste of people, resources, and time.

I don't want to sound too cliche, but capitalism/commercialism is so parasitically attached to some people that seperation is about as traumatic to them as a hack surgeon seperating some French siamese twins.

Example: Take one 17 year old female, remove the cell phone, remove the Grand Am/Eclipse/Whatever-car-girls-get-on-their-birthdays-these-days, remove the television and have her spend a week without money.
 

trumie04

Member
Let's not forget who owns all of the "evil" corporations. Individual Americans, among others are the owners of corporations. To hear people talk about corporations like they are making heaps of money just for the CEO or President is ignorant. When corporations make a profit, so do millions of Americans. If you have a 401(k) plan from work, chances are pretty damn good that you are one of the partial owners of the "evil corporations".

Capitalism isn't perfect, but its as close as we can get to perfection right now. Unless someone can point to another type of economy that runs as well, I think capitalism is the way to go.
 

marx2k

Active member
Veteran
trumie04 said:
Let's not forget who owns all of the "evil" corporations. Individual Americans, among others are the owners of corporations. To hear people talk about corporations like they are making heaps of money just for the CEO or President is ignorant. When corporations make a profit, so do millions of Americans. If you have a 401(k) plan from work, chances are pretty damn good that you are one of the partial owners of the "evil corporations".

Capitalism isn't perfect, but its as close as we can get to perfection right now. Unless someone can point to another type of economy that runs as well, I think capitalism is the way to go.

A corporation's public stock is typically split among tens if not hundreds of thousands of people each owning a small portion.

Terry S Semel, CEO of Yahoo attained $230.6 mil in compensation in 2005.

Do you think any stock holders achieved that much from Yahoo?
Mr. Semel owns 64 shares of Yahoo stock. That's 0.14% of the company.

If Yahoo shares are paying off that well, SIGN ME UP.

In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production (i.e., non-management) worker was 431-to-1, up from 301-to-1 in 2003, according to "Executive Excess," an annual report released on Aug 30, 2005 by the liberal research groups United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies.

That's not the highest ever. In 2001, the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay hit a peak of 525-to-1.

Yes, capitalism is just about the most perfect thing we have going for us.
 

trumie04

Member
In the example of Terry S Semel the CEO of Yahoo, most of the $230.6 million was from stock options. This means that Mr. Semel had to raise the price of Yahoo's stock to make that money. While Mr. Semel did make quite a large sum of money for himself, only 6% of the stock is owned by insiders. The remaining 94% is owned by individuals and instutional investors. Yahoo's earnings per share was $1.35 x 1.35 billion shares= $1.84 billion. That leaves almost $1.61 billion for everyone else.

I don't understand why people care about how much someone else pays their CEO. If a sports team wants to pay millions for a player, who cares? It's not like its your money. If I want to pay someone $1000 to cut my lawn, its no one's business but my own. In America, we have the freedom to decide how much to pay our employees. The shareholders of Yahoo don't seem to think that $230 million is too much, why should anyone else?
 

marx2k

Active member
Veteran
trumie04 said:
In the example of Terry S Semel the CEO of Yahoo, most of the $230.6 million was from stock options. This means that Mr. Semel had to raise the price of Yahoo's stock to make that money. While Mr. Semel did make quite a large sum of money for himself, only 6% of the stock is owned by insiders. The remaining 94% is owned by individuals and instutional investors. Yahoo's earnings per share was $1.35 x 1.35 billion shares= $1.84 billion. That leaves almost $1.61 billion for everyone else.

I don't understand why people care about how much someone else pays their CEO. If a sports team wants to pay millions for a player, who cares? It's not like its your money. If I want to pay someone $1000 to cut my lawn, its no one's business but my own. In America, we have the freedom to decide how much to pay our employees. The shareholders of Yahoo don't seem to think that $230 million is too much, why should anyone else?

This is specifically the problem with capitalism on a corporate scale. (the economic pyramid I posted of before)

I imagine the lower-end employees at Yahoo would appreciate a pay raise.
 

trumie04

Member
Marx, I agree that the low-end employees would appreciate a raise. I don't know anyone who wouldn't. But Yahoo only paid $600,000 in salary to this man. It's not like Yahoo is giving this guy huge piles of cash and neglecting their other employees. If Yahoo actually dished out $230 million from the company, I bet the employees would be really angry that they didn't get a raise.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top