63

Saturday, 21.08.2010.

12:29

Priština announces elections in north

The Kosovo Albanian government in Priština could move to call elections for the municipality of northern Kosovska Mitrovica.

Izvor: Beta

Priština announces elections in north IMAGE SOURCE
IMAGE DESCRIPTION

63 Komentari

Sortiraj po:

lowe

pre 13 godina

“It was an analogy… let me know if you need help to understand when something is an analogy. I had to use it so that you could see in a more simple way what your logic meant.”

Your analogy has to make sense. Debts and interest payments are definitely linked. But the sun and Manchester United are linked only in your own dreams.



“I did not dispute the “$375 billion spent on repayment…. etc..”. I disputed your “fact” that “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. That is false. The “$375 billion etc…” supports a statement about “US federal” not “US””

Federal or non-federal, that debt is still Americans’ to repay with huge interests – no running away from this unless they elect to default. The burden is still Americans’.

And the $375 billion is still much larger than the $50 billion spent on the education that was cited by the source. There’s no running away from the numbers.

“Exactly… have you heard about the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; a local government entity. How did they build the tunnels and bridges that they own ? Through selling debt and repaying it with tolls that they charge and making a profit out of that. For example, in 2009, it’s true that they paid 0.5 billion in interest, but they collected 1.1 billion in tolls and after considering all other revenues and expenses they made a profit of 0.85 billion (see page 16 of their financial statements below).

I don’t see anybody bearing a cost here: the bottom line is a profit and that’s what matters.
[link]

One of the golden rules of finance is that if you can borrow (not everybody can; you need good credit history) you should borrow for capital investments. Financially, it does not make sense to wait to have all cash needed to make a capital investment (let me know if you need help to understand why, but it’s going to be a finance lecture), unless you are forced to, because your credit history does not allow you to borrow. On an individual level, if people followed your logic, most of them could never own a home until they are about to die, because only at that time they would have accumulated enough cash to buy the home.”

So the New Jersey government made a profit out of their debts which I supposed has been fully repaid in a relatively short time. But I was talking about America’s multi-trillion dollar debts the principal of which remained unrepaid to date and appears to show signs of growing even further. It is not exactly the same as the New Jersey scenario where borrowings was repaid and led to a profit in a short time.

As for your take on home ownership through mortgage – wasn’t this precisely the major course for the US’s recent financial problems and housing market debacle? The likes of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mae extending absurd, unsustainable mortgages to Americans who later couldn’t financially support the repayments and had to have their properties repossessed. Which was widespread enough to cause the property collapse. Of course, I don’t have the numerical evidence – but this was a report that I saw on CNN and the news media was full of such coverage at that time.

“No I did not assume that; I said it over and over again; it depends on the purpose. You appear convinced on the “bad” part, that’s why I’m bringing you only arguments for the “good” part, because for the “bad” your are already convinced so I don’t have to convince you about that. So, I'm not assuming neither "good" or "bad". “

The bad part appears more plausible to me as I am not aware of Americans themselves publicly waxing praises about their nation’s debts today. Are you?


“Sometimes they have said that. For example the US treasury made sometimes huge profits from borrowing to bail out banks (for example Citigroup).

That being said, the last thing I’d trust are the words of politicians. I need the facts to form an opinion, and not what somebody says. So far, I’ve not seen and you did not provide any fact how the borrowed funds are used. So I agree with you that US is borrowing a lot and also pays interest, but I can’t tell how much that is good or bad without any fact what that money is being used for.
(icj1, 16 October 2010 03:18)”
I don’t think the US would dare to show its people how the funds are really being used – my hunch would be that a lot of it was possibly used to finance wasteful activities like the futile military adventures in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- and still remains to be repaid (with interests of course) without reaping of profits or dividends.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“It was an analogy… let me know if you need help to understand when something is an analogy. I had to use it so that you could see in a more simple way what your logic meant.”

Your analogy has to make sense. Debts and interest payments are definitely linked. But the sun and Manchester United are linked only in your own dreams.


“I did not dispute the “$375 billion spent on repayment…. etc..”. I disputed your “fact” that “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. That is false. The “$375 billion etc…” supports a statement about “US federal” not “US””

Federal or non-federal, that debt is still Americans’ to repay with huge interests – no running away from this unless they elect to default. The burden is still Americans’.

And the $375 billion is still much larger than the $50 billion spent on the education that was cited by the source. There’s no running away from the numbers.



“Exactly… have you heard about the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; a local government entity. How did they build the tunnels and bridges that they own ? Through selling debt and repaying it with tolls that they charge and making a profit out of that. For example, in 2009, it’s true that they paid 0.5 billion in interest, but they collected 1.1 billion in tolls and after considering all other revenues and expenses they made a profit of 0.85 billion (see page 16 of their financial statements below).

I don’t see anybody bearing a cost here: the bottom line is a profit and that’s what matters.
[link]

One of the golden rules of finance is that if you can borrow (not everybody can; you need good credit history) you should borrow for capital investments. Financially, it does not make sense to wait to have all cash needed to make a capital investment (let me know if you need help to understand why, but it’s going to be a finance lecture), unless you are forced to, because your credit history does not allow you to borrow. On an individual level, if people followed your logic, most of them could never own a home until they are about to die, because only at that time they would have accumulated enough cash to buy the home.”

So the New Jersey government made a profit out of their debts which I supposed has been fully repaid in a relatively short time. But I was talking about America’s multi-trillion dollar debts the principal of which remaining unrepaid to date and appears to show signs of growing even further. Its not exactly the same as the New Jersey scenario where borrowings was repaid and led to a profit in a short time.

As for your take on home ownership through mortgage – wasn’t this precisely the major course for the US’s recent financial problems and housing market debacle? The likes of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mae extending absurd, unsustainable mortgages to Americans who later couldn’t financially support the repayments and had to have their properties repossessed. Which was widespread enough to cause the property collapse. Of course, I don’t have the numerical evidence – but this was a report that I saw on CNN and the news media was full of such coverage at that time.

“No I did not assume that; I said it over and over again; it depends on the purpose. You appear convinced on the “bad” part, that’s why I’m bringing you only arguments for the “good” part, because for the “bad” your are already convinced so I don’t have to convince you about that. So, I'm not assuming neither "good" or "bad". “

The bad part appears more plausible to me as I am not aware of Americans themselves waxing praises about their nation’s debts today. Are you?


“Sometimes they have said that. For example the US treasury made sometimes huge profits from borrowing to bail out banks (for example Citigroup).

That being said, the last thing I’d trust are the words of politicians. I need the facts to form an opinion, and not what somebody says. So far, I’ve not seen and you did not provide any fact how the borrowed funds are used. So I agree with you that US is borrowing a lot and also pays interest, but I can’t tell how much that is good or bad without any fact what that money is being used for.
(icj1, 16 October 2010 03:18)”

I don’t think the US would dare to show its people how the funds are really being used – my hunch would be that a lot of it was possibly used to finance wasteful activities like the futile military adventures in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- and still remains to be repaid (with interests of course) without reaping profits or dividends.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Did I talk about the sun or soccer? I was talking about the US’s huge debts and its resulting huge interest payments. Debts and interest payments are related in the way that the sun and soccer aren't and so your logic is, to me, illogical.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

It was an analogy… let me know if you need help to understand when something is an analogy. I had to use it so that you could see in a more simple way what your logic meant.

As for the numbers, they showed that the $375 billion spent on repayment could have been used for other things, including education. You can say more than 3 times -- say it 3 million times if you like – but ithis still won’t change the fact that having to repay $375 billion is no small change by any standard. At the end of the day, the debts are still America’s to bear – whether it is federal level or state level or municipal level, they are still America’s interest payments.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

I did not dispute the “$375 billion spent on repayment…. etc..”. I disputed your “fact” that “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. That is false. The “$375 billion etc…” supports a statement about “US federal” not “US”.


So the US government borrows huge amounts from others, including foreigners, to build that tunnel? Because it can’t afford to build one because it doesn’t have the ready cash? And then covers itself by charges US drivers the tolls? End of the day, it is still Americans bearing the costs of the huge interest payments.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

Exactly… have you heard about the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; a local government entity. How did they build the tunnels and bridges that they own ? Through selling debt and repaying it with tolls that they charge and making a profit out of that. For example, in 2009, it’s true that they paid 0.5 billion in interest, but they collected 1.1 billion in tolls and after considering all other revenues and expenses they made a profit of 0.85 billion (see page 16 of their financial statements below).

I don’t see anybody bearing a cost here: the bottom line is a profit and that’s what matters.
http://www.panynj.gov/corporate-information/pdf/financial-statement-2009.pdf

One of the golden rules of finance is that if you can borrow (not everybody can; you need good credit history) you should borrow for capital investments. Financially, it does not make sense to wait to have all cash needed to make a capital investment (let me know if you need help to understand why, but it’s going to be a finance lecture), unless you are forced to, because your credit history does not allow you to borrow. On an individual level, if people followed your logic, most of them could never own a home until they are about to die, because only at that time they would have accumulated enough cash to buy the home.


You are conveniently assuming that the US borrows huge sums for investment purposes. I would tend to think the huge borrowings were for immediate gratification (consumption purposes) rather than investments.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

No I did not assume that; I said it over and over again; it depends on the purpose. You appear convinced on the “bad” part, that’s why I’m bringing you only arguments for the “good” part, because for the “bad” your are already convinced so I don’t have to convince you about that. So, I'm not assuming neither "good" or "bad".


The source quoted Obama as telling Americans that “We are out of money”. If the debts had been for “good purposes” don’t you think the American government would have already pounced on that before the electorate?
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

Sometimes they have said that. For example the US treasury made sometimes huge profits from borrowing to bail out banks (for example Citigroup).

That being said, the last thing I’d trust are the words of politicians. I need the facts to form an opinion, and not what somebody says. So far, I’ve not seen and you did not provide any fact how the borrowed funds are used. So I agree with you that US is borrowing a lot and also pays interest, but I can’t tell how much that is good or bad without any fact what that money is being used for.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 13 godina

“Dude, it’s the third time, I think, I’m saying it. These numbers are correct, but they don’t support your argument. You can’t say the fact that the sun rises in the east (which is obviously correct) proves that Manchester United is the best European soccer team.

To use your “fact” from above to support your statement, you should correct your statement to say the “US federal expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. Saying “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education” is false and your numbers above refer to “US federal” not “US”.

Alternatively, you can keep your statement, but change the "fact" and find another source that supports your statement.”

Did I talk about the sun or soccer? I was talking about the US’s huge debts and its resulting huge interest payments. Debts and interest payments are related in the way that the sun and soccer aren't and so your logic is, to me, illogical.

As for the numbers, they showed that the $375 billion spent on repayment could have been used for other things, including education. You can say more than 3 times -- say it 3 million times if you like – but ithis still won’t change the fact that having to repay $375 billion is no small change by any standard. At the end of the day, the debts are still America’s to bear – whether it is federal level or state level or municipal level, they are still America’s interest payments.


“Slow there… it was a hypothetical example that even an untrained mind in finance can easily understand, to prove that debt can be good. Of course that is not a real life example, I never claimed that, but the US does give a lot of money to other countries.

If you want to go into real finance, a real life example would be that the US sells 30 Year Treasury Bonds at 4% for $1,000,000,000 and uses the sale proceeds to build a tunnel linking NJ to Manhattan, then from the tolls that it charges to the cars using the tunnel it gets an ROI of 5%, thus making a profit. To determine what the tolls should be to make that 5% return in 10 years, we need to run a discounted cash flow analysis to determine the NPV and the IRR; let me know if you need help with that.”

So the US government borrows huge amounts from others, including foreigners, to build that tunnel? Because it can’t afford to build one because it doesn’t have the ready cash? And then covers itself by charges US drivers the tolls? End of the day, it is still Americans bearing the costs of the huge interest payments.


“I proved with math that you can get a profit from debt; if something gets you a profit, you do it. Of course you have to pay something; you can’t have a return without investing (you can’t have a free lunch) – the point is whether your return is higher than the money invested. The banks worldwide make huge profits by borrowing (they take your deposits at, say, 1%, and lend them at 6%). Math is an exact science. We can continue to argue here as long as you want, but that will not change the fact that 6% is larger than 1% and you can make a profit by borrowing. “

You are conveniently assuming that the US borrows huge sums for investment purposes. I would tend to think the huge borrowings were for immediate gratification (consumption purposes) rather than investments.


“I did not say the debt is entirely for good purposes. I said that that before giving a judgment on whether the debt is good or bad, we need to consider the purpose. Did your source indicate what the debt is being used for? Tell us that and then we can say whether the debt is good or bad.
(icj1, 1 October 2010 04:30)”

The source quoted Obama as telling Americans that “We are out of money”. If the debts had been for “good purposes” don’t you think the American government would have already pounced on that before the electorate?

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Well, the source I quoted mentioned $375 billion for interest payments and $50 billion for education. The numbers seem pretty clear cut to me.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:54)

Dude, it’s the third time, I think, I’m saying it. These numbers are correct, but they don’t support your argument. You can’t say the fact that the sun rises in the east (which is obviously correct) proves that Manchester United is the best European soccer team.

To use your “fact” from above to support your statement, you should correct your statement to say the “US federal expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. Saying “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education” is false and your numbers above refer to “US federal” not “US”.

Alternatively, you can keep your statement, but change the "fact" and find another source that supports your statement.


Is the US really in any position to lend money to anyone? I don’t have the data but I wouldn’t be surprised if most of their debts actually went into financing wasteful activities like their military bases overseas, misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, expensive social security programs for the pampered American electorate used to the good life, etc rather than on wealth generating activities that you seemed so confident about.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:54)

Slow there… it was a hypothetical example that even an untrained mind in finance can easily understand, to prove that debt can be good. Of course that is not a real life example, I never claimed that, but the US does give a lot of money to other countries.

If you want to go into real finance, a real life example would be that the US sells 30 Year Treasury Bonds at 4% for $1,000,000,000 and uses the sale proceeds to build a tunnel linking NJ to Manhattan, then from the tolls that it charges to the cars using the tunnel it gets an ROI of 5%, thus making a profit. To determine what the tolls should be to make that 5% return in 10 years, we need to run a discounted cash flow analysis to determine the NPV and the IRR; let me know if you need help with that.

Good or bad, they still incur interests which has to be paid, right? And paid again and again as long as the debts remain outstanding. And they will, given their humongous amount, remain outstanding for a long, long time, unless Washington chooses to default.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:54)

I proved with math that you can get a profit from debt; if something gets you a profit, you do it. Of course you have to pay something; you can’t have a return without investing (you can’t have a free lunch) – the point is whether your return is higher than the money invested. The banks worldwide make huge profits by borrowing (they take your deposits at, say, 1%, and lend them at 6%). Math is an exact science. We can continue to argue here as long as you want, but that will not change the fact that 6% is larger than 1% and you can make a profit by borrowing.


If these debts are entirely for “good” purposes, then why the outcry from Americans themselves? I believe the source that I quoted to be American.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:54)

I did not say the debt is entirely for good purposes. I said that that before giving a judgment on whether the debt is good or bad, we need to consider the purpose. Did your source indicate what the debt is being used for? Tell us that and then we can say whether the debt is good or bad.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 13 godina

“The point was to convince the readers that your “fact” that US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education was false and misleading. As for the opportunity cost part, see the numerical example below. “

Well, the source I quoted mentioned $375 billion for interest payments and $50 billion for education. The numbers seem pretty clear cut to me.


“I didn’t say that. I just explained that the debt being bad or not depends on its purpose. But I did not say what the purpose was as I don’t have the data. If you have it, let’s discuss it.”

Good or bad, they still incur interests which has to be paid, right? And paid again and again as long as the debts remain outstanding. And they will, given their humongous amount, remain outstanding for a long, long time, unless Washington chooses to default. If these debts are entirely for “good” purposes, then why the outcry from Americans themselves? I believe the source that I quoted to be American.


“And that would be fine if the funds obtained from that debt are generating a return higher than the interest payments. You can’t say “regardless” for the purpose of debt. If you want a simple numerical example: The US government borrows $1,000 at 2% interest rate (that’s an interest expense of $20/year). Now, the US Government lends that $1,000 to Russia at an interest rate of 3% (and Russia is happy with that because due to its lower credit rating it can only obtain debt at 4% in the capital markets). So the US government will receive $30/year in interest payments from Russia. On a net basis the US government is making a profit of $10/year from that $1,000 of debt. So, why shouldn’t the US government do it ?
(icj1, 25 September 2010 19:49)”

Is the US really in any position to lend money to anyone? I don’t have the data but I wouldn’t be surprised if most of their debts actually went into financing wasteful activities like their military bases overseas, misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, expensive social security programs for the pampered American electorate used to the good life, etc rather than on wealth generating activities that you seemed so confident about.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Partial picture or not, the $375 billion of interest payments for federal debts could have been used to pay for educational and other expenses incurred at the federal level. Or be used for investments or other economically productive purposes. There is no running away from the opportunity costs foregone incurred by having to make these interest payments.
(lowe, 19 September 2010 10:12)

The point was to convince the readers that your “fact” that US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education was false and misleading. As for the opportunity cost part, see the numerical example below.


How do you know the debt was not used for current expenditure (now past expenditure)?
(lowe, 19 September 2010 10:12)

I didn’t say that. I just explained that the debt being bad or not depends on its purpose. But I did not say what the purpose was as I don’t have the data. If you have it, let’s discuss it.


And the huge interest payments continue regardless of the purpose of the debt.
(lowe, 19 September 2010 10:12)

And that would be fine if the funds obtained from that debt are generating a return higher than the interest payments. You can’t say “regardless” for the purpose of debt. If you want a simple numerical example: The US government borrows $1,000 at 2% interest rate (that’s an interest expense of $20/year). Now, the US Government lends that $1,000 to Russia at an interest rate of 3% (and Russia is happy with that because due to its lower credit rating it can only obtain debt at 4% in the capital markets). So the US government will receive $30/year in interest payments from Russia. On a net basis the US government is making a profit of $10/year from that $1,000 of debt. So, why shouldn’t the US government do it ?

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 13 godina

“And that's correct, but it's the partial picture. You said, “US (whichever the level of government) has to pay far, far more to its creditors in interests for humongous debts than on essentials like education.”

The US Treasury department deals only with the Federal level outlays. The State and Local governments have their own treasuries. So, the fact you brought, about the “whichever the level of government“ is still false.

And I explained it before; the interest on the Federal level debt is 100% the responsibility of the US Treasury. The Education expenditure is for most part the responsibility of the State and Local governments (in the US, at least, not sure about Serbia). So you have to take all levels of government into account when you do the comparison. You can’t tell somebody why you don’t do something, when that thing is (mainly) somebody’s else job. “

Partial picture or not, the $375 billion of interest payments for federal debts could have been used to pay for educational and other expenses incurred at the federal level. Or be used for investments or other economically productive purposes.There is no running away from the opportunity costs foregone incurred by having to make these interest payments.


“The fact of taking debt is not bad on itself. That depends on what the debt is used for. If it’s used for investments (for example infrastructure), than the interest cost is offset by the future returns on that investment (on a more personal level, you buy a house by taking a loan from the bank – you pay interest, but you also rent the house thus generating rental income, and may have a profit out of that). If the debt is used for current expenditure, that’s not desirable.
(icj1, 18 September 2010 03:52)”

How do you know the debt was not used for current expenditure (now past expenditure)? And the huge interest payments continue regardless of the purpose of the debt.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

According to my link, the US Treasury Dept spent $375 billion on interest payments compared, which is huge compared with the $53 billion for education.
(lowe, 13 September 2010 07:48)

And that's correct, but it's the partial picture. You said, “US (whichever the level of government) has to pay far, far more to its creditors in interests for humongous debts than on essentials like education.”

The US Treasury department deals only with the Federal level outlays. The State and Local governments have their own treasuries. So, the fact you brought, about the “whichever the level of government“ is still false.

And I explained it before; the interest on the Federal level debt is 100% the responsibility of the US Treasury. The Education expenditure is for most part the responsibility of the State and Local governments (in the US, at least, not sure about Serbia). So you have to take all levels of government into account when you do the comparison. You can’t tell somebody why you don’t do something, when that thing is (mainly) somebody’s else job.


The issue here that I believe the source to be addressing was that these humongous interest payments represented an opportunity cost lost for the US economy. Because this money could have instead been used to pay for other things, including over 7 times the expenditure for education (education as defined by the source). Or if that $375 billion had hypothetically been given to Nasa, it could have paid for almost 20 times of the latter's expenditure. Its all about opportunity costs incurred by these interest payments.
(lowe, 13 September 2010 07:48)

The fact of taking debt is not bad on itself. That depends on what the debt is used for. If it’s used for investments (for example infrastructure), than the interest cost is offset by the future returns on that investment (on a more personal level, you buy a house by taking a loan from the bank – you pay interest, but you also rent the house thus generating rental income, and may have a profit out of that). If the debt is used for current expenditure, that’s not desirable.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"I'm not sure if you don't get it or don't want to get it. I said before that the fact you mention above is wrong. What all levels of US government pay in interest is much smaller than the education expenditure of all levels of US government. See for example below:

[link]
(icj1, 12 September 2010 17:39) "

According to my link, the US Treasury Dept spent $375 billion on interest payments compared, which is huge compared with the $53 billion for education.

The issue here that I believe the source to be addressing was that these humongous interest payments represented an opportunity cost lost for the US economy. Because this money could have instead been used to pay for other things, including over 7 times the expenditure for education (education as defined by the source). Or if that $375 billion had hypothetically been given to Nasa, it could have paid for almost 20 times of the latter's expenditure. Its all about opportunity costs incurred by these interest payments.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Nevertheless the fact remains that the US (whichever the level of government) has to pay far, far more to its creditors in interests for humongous debts than on essentials like education.
(lowe, 11 September 2010 09:53)

I'm not sure if you don't get it or don't want to get it. I said before that the fact you mention above is wrong. What all levels of US government pay in interest is much smaller than the education expenditure of all levels of US government. See for example below:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2009_US.html

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“Education is mostly a matter of state and local governments in the US, so saying that $375 billion is far exceeding US spending on education is wrong as you forgot to include state and local governments. Be more careful with the “facts” you post in these forums.
(icj1, 11 September 2010 05:09)”

Nevertheless the fact remains that the US (whichever the level of government) has to pay far, far more to its creditors in interests for humongous debts than on essentials like education.

At the end of the day, the various parts all sum up to just one US economy.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Even at these low interest rates, the interest payments, according to the source in the link I provided earlier, amounted to $375 billion, far exceeding what the US spends on, say education.
(lowe, 10 September 2010 15:06)

Education is mostly a matter of state and local governments in the US, so saying that $375 billion is far exceeding US spending on education is wrong as you forgot to include state and local governments. Be more careful with the “facts” you post in these forums.


And if interest rates were to go up in the future, well, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
(lowe, 10 September 2010 15:06)

That’s why I said that the US government needs to issue now more long term bonds. In any case the point was that US does not need (or even may not be able) to borrow from the IMF.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, you always have to pay interest regardless where you borrow from (IMF or Capital markets). In addition, I'm not even sure the US would qualify for IMF loans. US is borrowing in the capital markets at historically low rates. Why should they go somewhere else ?!

They should actually issue more long term bonds to further benefit from these very low rates, so they can borrow less in the future when the rates may be higher.
(icj1, 10 September 2010 14:10) "

Even at these low interest rates, the interest payments, according to the source in the link I provided earlier, amounted to $375 billion, far exceeding what the US spends on, say education. And if interest rates were to go up in the future, well, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Interests nevertheless still has to be paid right? And the interest payments will continue to baloon and baloon and baloon. [link]/
(lowe, 10 September 2010 10:00)

Of course, you always have to pay interest regardless where you borrow from (IMF or Capital markets). In addition, I'm not even sure the US would qualify for IMF loans. US is borrowing in the capital markets at historically low rates. Why should they go somewhere else ?!

They should actually issue more long term bonds to further benefit from these very low rates, so they can borrow less in the future when the rates may be higher.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Why should it do it when its issuing debt and borrowing in the capital markets at very low interest rates ?!!!

IMF and WB are for those who don't have easy/cheap access to capital markets to borrow because of their creditworthiness.
(icj1, 10 September 2010 04:40) "

Interests nevertheless still has to be paid right? And the interest payments will continue to baloon and baloon and baloon. http://www.federalbudget.com/

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

And if IMF membership's main draw was to borrow funds from it, one wonders why the USA with the most humongous debt in the entire world did not see fit to tap on this IMF resource. Pride perhaps?
(lowe, 8 September 2010 14:03)

Why should it do it when its issuing debt and borrowing in the capital markets at very low interest rates ?!!!

IMF and WB are for those who don't have easy/cheap access to capital markets to borrow because of their creditworthiness.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"According to IMF, Hong Kong is not a member, unless they forgot to include it in the list:

[link]
(icj1, 7 September 2010 06:21)"

"On the other hand, it is relevant for entities to claim that they are countries because that gives them certain rights and privileges, like membership in the WB or IMF from where they can get loans. If they are not considered countries, than they need to have somebody else to get loans for them.
(icj1, 4 September 2010 15:53) "

Yes, you are right about HK not being an IMF member.

And if IMF membership's main draw was to borrow funds from it, one wonders why the USA with the most humongous debt in the entire world did not see fit to tap on this IMF resource. Pride perhaps?

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

You are wrong about IMF requiring members to be countries. Hongkong is an IMF member but it is not a country. In fact nobody sees Hongkong as a country, not even the Hongkongers themselves.
(lowe, 6 September 2010 11:30)

According to IMF, Hong Kong is not a member, unless they forgot to include it in the list:

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"On the other hand, it is relevant for entities to claim that they are countries because that gives them certain rights and privileges, like membership in the WB or IMF from where they can get loans. If they are not considered countries, than they need to have somebody else to get loans for them.
(icj1, 4 September 2010 15:53) "

You are wrong about IMF requiring members to be countries. Hongkong is an IMF member but it is not a country. In fact nobody sees Hongkong as a country, not even the Hongkongers themselves.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Is the concept of independence subjective or even irrelevant for entitites that claim to be countries then? Seems so to me from your explanation.
(lowe, 30 August 2010 01:50)

Of course it is subjective. The amount of independence is a continuum and there is no official definition where in this continuum you should be to be considered independent. Take Albania for example. Some may think it is not an independent country, because it partially depends on EU financial support. Is that thinking correct or not ? I don’t know.

On the other hand, it is relevant for entities to claim that they are countries because that gives them certain rights and privileges, like membership in the WB or IMF from where they can get loans. If they are not considered countries, than they need to have somebody else to get loans for them.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 13 godina

"There are countries which are independent and others which are not. There is no such a thing as "officially independent". There does not exist an entity which issues certificates of independence to make the independence "official". That's a matter of reality, not paperwork.

In any case, none of the charters (UN, WB or IMF) requires the countries to be independent. All three just require them to be countries. And that's understandable, otherwise they would have to determine what independence means every time they have to admit a new member or expel an existing one.
(icj1, 29 August 2010 18:01) "

Is the concept of independence subjective or even irrelevant for entitites that claim to be countries then? Seems so to me from your explanation.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

"So, no, none of the charters, be that WB, IMF or UN require members to be independent. They just require them to be a country.
(icj1, 28 August 2010 18:29) "

I would have thought a country should be officially independent too.
(lowe, 29 August 2010 06:25)

There are countries which are independent and others which are not. There is no such a thing as "officially independent". There does not exist an entity which issues certificates of independence to make the independence "official". That's a matter of reality, not paperwork.

In any case, none of the charters (UN, WB or IMF) requires the countries to be independent. All three just require them to be countries. And that's understandable, otherwise they would have to determine what independence means every time they have to admit a new member or expel an existing one.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"So, no, none of the charters, be that WB, IMF or UN require members to be independent. They just require them to be a country.
(icj1, 28 August 2010 18:29) "

I would have thought a country should be officially independent too.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Ok, I just wanted you to clarify the voting system that you referred to. Another question – do the charters (I think that’s the legal term used) of both these financial institutions require members to be independent states? If they do not, then really the comparison with UN entry is inappropriate.
(lowe, 27 August 2010 14:57)

For WB and IMF is called “Articles of Agreement”, but let’s call it charter for a shorter name.

So, no, none of the charters, be that WB, IMF or UN require members to be independent. They just require them to be a country.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 13 godina

(icj1, 27 August 2010 05:35)

“Wooow… 192 countries that need to maintain the affirmation of their statehood !!! That’s scary… According to Lowe’s logic, Vatican is the only country in the world which does not need affirmation of its statehood. But that’s understandable; it has divine affirmation… ha, ha, ha… “

You are evading the question that I posed you with another contrived question of your own. I wanted to know what other compelling reasons you may have to suggest why new states apply for UN membership other than to affirm their independent status. You have chosen to make light sport of it. I could only therefore conclude that you don’t have any alternative good reason to offer.

As for the Vatican's divinity, I am sure their God would not be going "ha ha ha" anytime soon over the amount of sex abuse cases coming out of the Catholic churches according to news reports in recent times!


"So, you are saying “only” actually means “only except Ukraine and Belarus” ?"

I didn’t say that. Since only independent states can join the UN, it means the West had officially accepted Ukraine and Belarus as independent back then. I do not profess to know enough about Soviet history to know whether they were really independent or not. And you likewise should not summarily conclude that they were not in the absence of much more compelling evidence to support your position.


“I did not say the number of votes, which was easy for Kosovo to win since almost all developed countries have recognized it. I said the majority of countries. For WB, out of 106 countries which submitted the ballot, 96 voted for Kosovo and 10 against. For IMF, out of 103 countries which submitted the vote, 96 voted for Kosovo (including 13 new countries which did not vote for WB), and 7 against. So, in total, between WB and IMF, 109 countries supported Kosovo (96+13).”

Ok, I just wanted you to clarify the voting system that you referred to. Another question – do the charters (I think that’s the legal term used) of both these financial institutions require members to be independent states? If they do not, then really the comparison with UN entry is inappropriate.


“Of course you are right. If they thought otherwise, they would have easily joined the 20+ millions that Stalin sent back to the creator. “

Where did you get your “20* million” figure from? From Western sources? How objective are they?


“I don’t pretend to know what the government of Ukraine believed; it was irrelevant for Stalin. The thing I know is that they were not independent. No amount of UN membership could change that. You sound like you’re coming from Mars and are seeing for the first time Stalin’s name”

Since you admit not knowing what the Ukrainians believed, you should not be dismissing them as Stalin’s servants. They could well have voluntarily delegated their rights to the Soviet government to act on their behalf. And if they did so, Stalin’s frightfulness (to you) becomes irrelevant. You claimed “to know that they are not independent”. Again, where did you get your info from? Western sources again? Your sources may hail from earth but even Martians would question their objectivity.


“Because Stalin needed them there to vote as he wanted. He didn’t care what they wanted”

Again a sweeping but unsubstantiated statement from you. How do you know that he was not defending their claims to UN membership as independent states in the face of Western opposition?


“I did not say they were unhappy with USSR or the way they gained UN membership. I’m not in their minds. I said they were not independent from 1945 to 1991. “

That’s your view. But if they had felt themselves to be independent, I would tend to take their point of view rather than yours. As I already stated in my earlier post, I am unaware of the present governments of Ukraine and Belarus having expressed any reservations or anger at the way they were admitted to the UN back then.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

What other compelling reasons could there be, in your opinion, for joining the UN if not for the sake of getting affirmation of statehood? I am sure socialising wasn’t at the top of the agenda for any new applicant.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

Wooow… 192 countries that need to maintain the affirmation of their statehood !!! That’s scary… According to Lowe’s logic, Vatican is the only country in the world which does not need affirmation of its statehood. But that’s understandable; it has divine affirmation… ha, ha, ha…


Only independent states can join the UN. Of course in the case of Ukraine and Byelorussia, the West was compelled to treat them as independent states for purpose of admission whatever their own opinions.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

So, you are saying “only” actually means “only except Ukraine and Belarus” ?


As for the WB and IMF, the voting is not based on one-member-one-vote. So is the majority that you stated based on number of members or their voting allocation? In any case, the voting is not as democratic as say, the UN General Assembly.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

I did not say the number of votes, which was easy for Kosovo to win since almost all developed countries have recognized it. I said the majority of countries. For WB, out of 106 countries which submitted the ballot, 96 voted for Kosovo and 10 against. For IMF, out of 103 countries which submitted the vote, 96 voted for Kosovo (including 13 new countries which did not vote for WB), and 7 against. So, in total, between WB and IMF, 109 countries supported Kosovo (96+13).


In my opinion, you are passing judgement as an outsider on Ukraine’s status. If an insider (the Ukraine government of that time) felt then that they were independent or at least in a union of equals with Moscow, who’s to say then that you are definitely right or they are wrong?
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

Of course you are right. If they thought otherwise, they would have easily joined the 20+ millions that Stalin sent back to the creator.


Is it not possible that insiders have access to information unavailable to the guessing outsiders? Isn’t it possible that Kiev considered themselves, as a constituent part of the USSR, to have entrusted the right to make treaties with China or other countries to the USSR government? If the Ukrainians did perceive things that way, on what basis then can outsiders then can claim to know better? As for Stalin himself, he was reviled but he had many admirers too. Is it farfetched to expect that some of these admirers who shared his socialist ideals came from within the old Ukrainian government itself? My basic point is that outsiders have to make a really strong case if they claim to know more about Ukraine than the Ukranians themselves – certainly you need much more than just a dismissive “ha ha ha”.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

I don’t pretend to know what the government of Ukraine believed; it was irrelevant for Stalin. The thing I know is that they were not independent. No amount of UN membership could change that. You sound like you’re coming from Mars and are seeing for the first time Stalin’s name.


“If Pristina were offered a UN membership with the condition that it should be under Serbia (the same as the Ukraine and Belarus’ memberships under USSR), they would run as far as they can from New York. “

Pristina would. My point however was that Ukraine and Belarus (Byelorussia) didn’t.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

Because Stalin needed them there to vote as he wanted. He didn’t care what they wanted.


Even come 1991, both countries didn’t renounce their UN seats to reapply as a matter of principle to make a point that they were unhappy with the USSR. Nor to my knowledge did they expressed regret or dissatisfaction with the way they gained UN membership after World War 2.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

I did not say they were unhappy with USSR or the way they gained UN membership. I’m not in their minds. I said they were not independent from 1945 to 1991.


Then we are right back to the starting point. As already established, you don’t need UN membership to be independent. Half of the reality is that Pristina wants UN membership. The other half however is that it cannot hope to get that membership anytime soon.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

Fully agree with all three points

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 13 godina

icj1,

“That’s your perception. I have not heard anybody speaking in the names of those countries and saying that they want to be accepted in the UN in order to have their independence accepted. Many states, actually the majority, believed Kosovo was a country when called to vote for its admission to the WB and IMF. They did not wait for the UN.”

What other compelling reasons could there be, in your opinion, for joining the UN if not for the sake of getting affirmation of statehood? I am sure socialising wasn’t at the top of the agenda for any new applicant. Only independent states can join the UN. Of course in the case of Ukraine and Byelorussia, the West was compelled to treat them as independent states for purpose of admission whatever their own opinions.

As for the WB and IMF, the voting is not based on one-member-one-vote. So is the majority that you stated based on number of members or their voting allocation? In any case, the voting is not as democratic as say, the UN General Assembly.

“Ha, ha, ha…. “free will” !!!. I’m not disputing what they were or were not constitutionally; constitution was no more than a piece of paper for Stalin. My point is how independent was the Ukraine government in 1950 to take a decision to, say, stipulate a treaty with China. If they even thought about that, some hundreds of people would have ended up with a bullet in their head and some other thousands would have been sent for some long “vacation” in Siberia. “

In my opinion, you are passing judgement as an outsider on Ukraine’s status. If an insider (the Ukraine government of that time) felt then that they were independent or at least in a union of equals with Moscow, who’s to say then that you are definitely right or they are wrong? Is it not possible that insiders have access to information unavailable to the guessing outsiders? Isn’t it possible that Kiev considered themselves, as a constituent part of the USSR, to have entrusted the right to make treaties with China or other countries to the USSR government? If the Ukrainians did perceive things that way, on what basis then can outsiders then can claim to know better? As for Stalin himself, he was reviled but he had many admirers too. Is it farfetched to expect that some of these admirers who shared his socialist ideals came from within the old Ukrainian government itself? My basic point is that outsiders have to make a really strong case if they claim to know more about Ukraine than the Ukranians themselves – certainly you need much more than just a dismissive “ha ha ha”.


“If Pristina were offered a UN membership with the condition that it should be under Serbia (the same as the Ukraine and Belarus’ memberships under USSR), they would run as far as they can from New York. “

Pristina would. My point however was that Ukraine and Belarus (Byelorussia) didn’t. Even come 1991, both countries didn’t renounce their UN seats to reapply as a matter of principle to make a point that they were unhappy with the USSR. Nor to my knowledge did they expressed regret or dissatisfaction with the way they gained UN membership after World War 2.


“Lowe, I’m not discussing about legalities either; I’m discussing about the reality. All your discussion is about symbolic independence or independence on paper. I don’t think Pristina wants that. They want the real independence.
(icj1, 25 August 2010 08:09)”

Then we are right back to the starting point. As already established, you don’t need UN membership to be independent. Half of the reality is that Pristina wants UN membership. The other half however is that it cannot hope to get that membership anytime soon.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Then let me clarify once and for all. UN membership is not a compulsory condition for independence.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

Good that we established this because I was a little bit perplexed by the UN membership being the “ultimate symbol of independence”.


That said however, it cannot be denied that most newly independent countries do desire UN membership and in fact make a beeline to apply for that UN membership. I think they did so because they perceive that being accepted into the UN represents the ultimate symbol of the world’s acceptance of your independent status.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

That’s your perception. I have not heard anybody speaking in the names of those countries and saying that they want to be accepted in the UN in order to have their independence accepted. Many states, actually the majority, believed Kosovo was a country when called to vote for its admission to the WB and IMF. They did not wait for the UN.


Byelorussia and Ukraine did have UN membership – you seemed to view that they were colonies of Moscow. I think this is the common perception by the West. I am not familiar with the histories of these countries but isn’t it just possible that the then governments in these 2 countries saw themselves as being inside the USSR of their own free will? The West had to accept their membership as a compromise to Moscow’s demands for all republics inside the USSR to have UN membership. Constitutionally the USSR is a union of republics.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

Ha, ha, ha…. “free will” !!!. I’m not disputing what they were or were not constitutionally; constitution was no more than a piece of paper for Stalin. My point is how independent was the Ukraine government in 1950 to take a decision to, say, stipulate a treaty with China. If they even thought about that, some hundreds of people would have ended up with a bullet in their head and some other thousands would have been sent for some long “vacation” in Siberia.


In terms of symbols however, Byelorussia and Ukraine were accepted as independent nations by the UN with voting rights and all. And I think I am right to say that, whatever opinion you or I hold about what UN membership means, Pristina DOES indeed desire this membership for itself.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

If Pristina were offered a UN membership with the condition that it should be under Serbia (the same as the Ukraine and Belarus’ memberships under USSR), they would run as far as they can from New York.


As for your other hypothetical scenario (unlikely to materialize in my opinion) where Russia alone refuses to allow Kosovo entry into UN – that would deprive Kosovo of a powerful symbol of statehood won’t it? They will then be as miffed as the Taiwanese since they do desire UN membership. I am talking perception (that symbols convey) not legalities here of course.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

Lowe, I’m not discussing about legalities either; I’m discussing about the reality. All your discussion is about symbolic independence or independence on paper. I don’t think Pristina wants that. They want the real independence.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 13 godina

johny,

Yes, I had initially thought that the UDI went against 1244. But the ICJ has since ruled that this declaration itself does not violate 1244. So the mere declaration of independence does not violate international law – which means North Kosovo and Strpce, for example, will not be violating international law if they were to do their own UDIs too. The ICJ however did not rule whether Kosovo is a state or not.

Whatever Serbia, Pristina and their respectaive supporters perceive and feel about the UDI, the UN and statehood issues, there is no denying that UN entry for Kosovo remains a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
johny

pre 13 godina

lowe the argument we were having was that you were adamant that the declaration per se was against 1244. You believed that 1244 prohibited such a declaration. While I maintained that it is naive for a declaration, any declaration to be illegal because anyone can declare anything they want.


"Can you honestly say that Pristina doesn’t care for UN membership? Then what is Hyseni doing at the UNHQ? To sightsee as a repeat tourist? I think not."

-- That is not what I am saying. Of course Prishtina cares about UN membership. What I am saying is that not being a member or even being vetoed out does not necessarily mean ultimate defeat and failure and that because of that we should beg to be part of Serbia again. So that is why I mentioned Albania. It took several trials and a lot of time not to be vetoed, but they eventually became members. Others have gone through the same process. So this is a process and not an instantaneous event. So as a process this is different for different cases. The circumstances for each case are different. That results in faster, slower or no membership, based on the circumstances. So while UN membership is desirable, it certainly is not what makes you or what breaks you. One can exist as independent without UN membership. One can eventually become a member even after being vetoed. One can even not be recognized as a state by many and not be a member and still be better off than reintegrating. Examples of these exist all over the world. Considering Serbia's constitution even under the most extreme case when only a few Western countries support us, that is still being better off than reintegrating into Serbia. There are no incentives whatsoever that would make reintegration such a desirable thing. None. As a matter of fact the more time passes the more reasons we find why reintegration is such a wrong scenario for our future.

"But desiring UN membership is one thing, gaining membership is a different thing – my other point simply was that “Kosova” in any case has no hope of UN entry anytime soon because of Russia and China. And many countries (INCLUDING China) do see your UDI as a formidable threat to their own ethnic problems."

-- Yes that is correct. I believe I have addressed that above. Again UN membership does not constitute the end of it all, or the beginning of it all. It is highly desirable but not necessarily what will make or break our existence or our future away from Serbia. Also the circumstances existing now may not be the same as in the future. Nobody can predict what happens in the future. Claiming that Kosova will be vetoed eternally is short sighted.

"I’m not trying to “paint” a false gloomy future for “Kosova”. Objectively from the news reports (including from pro-Pristina sources) you guys do appear to be headed for that gloomy future!"

--In case you did not get it before. No matter how gloomy that future you or anyone paints is, it is way shinier compared to what the Serb constitution specifies. It is that simple. We have weighed the options and come to the conclusion. We don't need to go back to the 90's again to make up our minds again. We do not need to pay that price again to make up our minds again. Simple.



--As for the comment you made about perceptions. I agree with that. Your side can have your perceptions we can have ours. Your perceptions are not necessarily the reality for everyone out there, just like ours are not necessarily the reality for everyone out there. However we are ok with that as long as our perceptions constitutes the reality for ourselves and our supporters, while your side isn't. That is the difference. We have learned to live with it hence we don't beg you to sit with us; you haven't. You will be made to learn to live with it. Modus-vivendi is not being thrown out there for no reason.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 13 godina

“Agreed, Kosovo’s claim to sovereignty is far from universally accepted or not accepted. But I don’t get how UN membership has anything to do with that. Assume that Kosovo is recognized by all states in the world (including Serbia) and only Russia refuses to recognize it, so Kosovo can’t become a UN member. Would that mean that Kosovo is not an independent state ?

And, I still did not see any objection on your side to my example on Ukraine and Belarus. So I take it that you’d agree with me that UN membership is not the “ultimate symbol of independence”.
(icj1, 24 August 2010 05:31)”

Then let me clarify once and for all. UN membership is not a compulsory condition for independence. That said however, it cannot be denied that most newly independent countries do desire UN membership and in fact make a beeline to apply for that UN membership. I think they did so because they perceive that being accepted into the UN represents the ultimate symbol of the world’s acceptance of your independent status. Look at the ex-Yugoslav republics Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia and Montenegro for example. In this sense, it is not enough for a new country just to have its flag, constitution, diplomatic relations, army – they also want UN membership. Achieving that membership however depends on the big boys in the UNSC.

Byelorussia and Ukraine did have UN membership – you seemed to view that they were colonies of Moscow. I think this is the common perception by the West. I am not familiar with the histories of these countries but isn’t it just possible that the then governments in these 2 countries saw themselves as being inside the USSR of their own free will? The West had to accept their membership as a compromise to Moscow’s demands for all republics inside the USSR to have UN membership. Constitutionally the USSR is a union of republics.

What I am trying to say is that it is all a matter of perception. What the West (and you) perceive need not be what others perceive. In terms of symbols however, Byelorussia and Ukraine were accepted as independent nations by the UN with voting rights and all. And I think I am right to say that, whatever opinion you or I hold about what UN membership means, Pristina DOES indeed desire this membership for itself.

As for your other hypothetical scenario (unlikely to materialize in my opinion) where Russia alone refuses to allow Kosovo entry into UN – that would deprive Kosovo of a powerful symbol of statehood won’t it? They will then be as miffed as the Taiwanese since they do desire UN membership. I am talking perception (that symbols convey) not legalities here of course.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“lowe I remember clearly some arguments we had on this issue and you had opposite opinion. I remember long copy-paste from 1244 etc etc. You've changed your tune.


Now on the UN. UN is not the urgent issue here. There are many other issues we have to deal first. As a matter of fact even Albania was vetoed out from the UN several times from a Russian veto; thanks to our best friends the Serbs and the Greeks who claimed Albania was their heartland. So you know being vetoed out doesn't mean you're not independent or you're not going to ever be independent. Norway was vetoed as well if I am not mistaken. Being vetoed out a couple of times is not really the ultimate defeat. It has been proven through history and through other UN members as well that one UN veto doesn't make you or break you. What matters is international support. Once you have that with time the veto will eventually not be used. Even if things fail miserably and we're vetoed eternally being directly tied to the EU and the US and having international support and the blessing of the West, beats what Serbia's constitution allows for any-day, any-time. There is not a single question about it. So despite the gloomy future you try lowe I remember clearly some arguments we had on this issue and you had opposite opinion. I remember long copy-paste from 1244 etc etc. You've changed your tune.


Now on the UN. UN is not the urgent issue here. There are many other issues we have to deal first. As a matter of fact even Albania was vetoed out from the UN several times from a Russian veto; thanks to our best friends the Serbs and the Greeks who claimed Albania was their heartland. So you know being vetoed out doesn't mean you're not independent or you're not going to ever be independent. Norway was vetoed as well if I am not mistaken. Being vetoed out a couple of times is not really the ultimate defeat. It has been proven through history and through other UN members as well that one UN veto doesn't make you or break you. What matters is international support. Once you have that with time the veto will eventually not be used. Even if things fail miserably and we're vetoed eternally being directly tied to the EU and the US and having international support and the blessing of the West, beats what Serbia's constitution allows for any-day, any-time. There is not a single question about it. So despite the gloomy future you try to paint for us, such a gloomy-future is way brighter than anything the Serbian constitution allows for.
(johny, 24 August 2010 08:21)”

What opposite view did I hold previously? Perhaps you could clearly enlighten me instead of going round in riddles.

I never said that UN membership was compulsory for independence. But on the other hand, however, most countries do quickly apply for UN membership once they gained independence – because these new countries obviously did associate UN membership as a symbol of the international community’s confirmation of their independent status. Look at Montenegro for example. Can you honestly say that Pristina doesn’t care for UN membership? Then what is Hyseni doing at the UNHQ? To sightsee as a repeat tourist? I think not. But desiring UN membership is one thing, gaining membership is a different thing – my other point simply was that “Kosova” in any case has no hope of UN entry anytime soon because of Russia and China. And many countries (INCLUDING China) do see your UDI as a formidable threat to their own ethnic problems.

I’m not trying to “paint” a false gloomy future for “Kosova”. Objectively from the news reports (including from pro-Pristina sources) you guys do appear to be headed for that gloomy future! See for example http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?lng=en&id=114977

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
johny

pre 13 godina

But what's there in international law that expressedly forbids K-Serbs (or K-Albanians or Eskimos for that matter) from declaring independence? It would appear to me that the mere declaration of UDI does not breach any international law. Especially when declaring a UDI from an entity that is not even a UN member and so whose status is unclear.
(lowe, 22 August 2010 13:06)

lowe I remember clearly some arguments we had on this issue and you had opposite opinion. I remember long copy-paste from 1244 etc etc. You've changed your tune.


Now on the UN. UN is not the urgent issue here. There are many other issues we have to deal first. As a matter of fact even Albania was vetoed out from the UN several times from a Russian veto; thanks to our best friends the Serbs and the Greeks who claimed Albania was their heartland. So you know being vetoed out doesn't mean you're not independent or you're not going to ever be independent. Norway was vetoed as well if I am not mistaken. Being vetoed out a couple of times is not really the ultimate defeat. It has been proven through history and through other UN members as well that one UN veto doesn't make you or break you. What matters is international support. Once you have that with time the veto will eventually not be used. Even if things fail miserably and we're vetoed eternally being directly tied to the EU and the US and having international support and the blessing of the West, beats what Serbia's constitution allows for any-day, any-time. There is not a single question about it. So despite the gloomy future you try to paint for us, such a gloomy-future is way brighter than anything the Serbian constitution allows for.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
Mitrovica

pre 13 godina

So useless ... what do they expect ? 2% turnout to claim victory ? it is so pathetic ... what cannot they leave these Serbs alone and focus on developing their Albanian blackhole !!!

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Why don’t you ask Pristina whether UN membership is important or not? I could have sworn the way Hyseni kept making a beeline for the UN HQ and the correspondences that Pristina sends to the UN that membership is among the top of Pristina’s wish list.
(lowe, 23 August 2010 10:47)

I think we agree here and Hyseni agrees with us. Read my post again… I said “UN membership is important”


I don’t think Switzerland is an appropriate example to cite. Switzerland has a long, long history of nationhood and was recognized by practically the entire world before UN membership. Nobody disputed the Swiss as a sovereigh nation. You can’t say the same thing for “Kosova”. It has no history of existence as a nation prior to 2008 and today its claims to sovereignty is far from universally accepted.
(lowe, 23 August 2010 10:47)

Agreed, Kosovo’s claim to sovereignty is far from universally accepted or not accepted. But I don’t get how UN membership has anything to do with that. Assume that Kosovo is recognized by all states in the world (including Serbia) and only Russia refuses to recognize it, so Kosovo can’t become a UN member. Would that mean that Kosovo is not an independent state ?

And, I still did not see any objection on your side to my example on Ukraine and Belarus. So I take it that you’d agree with me that UN membership is not the “ultimate symbol of independence”.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 13 godina

"they will not have to "convince" russia and china...

wekk first they need to get through the General Assembly...and then the security council veto comes into play...not before.

the question is IF russia and china will be willing to burn up the enormous political capital by going against a majority of un members to throw out a veto on behalf of a foreign country it has no real vested interests in.

whats "wishing for the moon" is the certainty serb apologists have that they will do so. The more recognition kosovo receives the MORE likely they are... particularly china, to simply make a "principled stance" and absain from voting for the sake of political lipservice, rather than an outright veto.
(AdamNYC, 23 August 2010 01:21) "

how is Pristina gonna enter the UN without convincing Russia and China in the UNSC????? A veto is a veto and takes effect the moment it is cast to block any resolution.

As for Russia and China “going against a majority of un members”, aren’t you counting your chickens before they hatch? The majority of UN members have still NOT yet officially recognized Pristina.
As for vested interests, believe me, nobody has more vested interest in Kosovo’s status than the Chinese. I’m referring to the implications for Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang of course. Nothing is more scared to Beijing than the concept of sovereignty and non-violation of territorial integrity. Your wish that they will abstain is, as I said, wishing for the moon!

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 6
lowe

pre 13 godina

"UN membership is important, the same way WB, IMF, EU memberships are important. But they don't have anything to do with the “ultimate symbol of independence”.

Ukraine and Belarus have been UN members since 1945 and we all know how "independent" they were from Moscow until 1991. On the other side, Switzerland only entered UN in 2002, and we all know how "not independent" Switzerland was before then.

As you can see, UN membership does not mean anything for independence purposes.
(icj1, 23 August 2010 01:08)"

Why don’t you ask Pristina whether UN membership is important or not? I could have sworn the way Hyseni kept making a beeline for the UN HQ and the correspondences that Pristina sends to the UN that membership is among the top of Pristina’s wish list.
I don’t think Switzerland is an appropriate example to cite. Switzerland has a long, long history of nationhood and was recognized by practically the entire world before UN membership. Nobody disputed the Swiss as a sovereigh nation. You can’t say the same thing for “Kosova”. It has no history of existence as a nation prior to 2008 and today its claims to sovereignty is far from universally accepted.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 5
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Kosovo is open to travel to any of more than 70 countries and to do business. This is enough to make success.
UN membership is an important goal but the question is lack of UN membership enough to risk returning to Serbian control- without UN membership?
What you are buying is of no consequence, it is what you are selling and right now it is at too high of price.
You consider it inconceivable for Serbia to accept Kosovo's independence when the most it means to Serbia is a bruised ego, but you think the people of Kosovo would return to a life of oppression because they do not have a UN seat?
(pss, 22 August 2010 20:35) "

Kosovo open for business? You mean open to receive foreign aid and alms from other countries -- well, if that's your idea of business "success", I would certainly beg to differ.

What I buy may be of no consequence to you, but I will bet you what the UNSC will (or won't) buy matters plenty to "Kosova". And Pristina can jolly well expect to receive NO business from the UN as far as membership is concerned. Of course, Hyseni can always come to visit. But then so can you and I. No big deal!

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 6
AdamNYC

pre 13 godina

@lowe

they will not have to "convince" russia and china...

wekk first they need to get through the General Assembly...and then the security council veto comes into play...not before.

the question is IF russia and china will be willing to burn up the enormous political capital by going against a majority of un members to throw out a veto on behalf of a foreign country it has no real vested interests in.

whats "wishing for the moon" is the certainty serb apologists have that they will do so. The more recognition kosovo receives the MORE likely they are... particularly china, to simply make a "principled stance" and absain from voting for the sake of political lipservice, rather than an outright veto.

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 6
icj1

pre 13 godina

An even more interesting thing is that Pristina itself will have to step outside if it wants to enter the UN -- the ultimate symbol of independence to the world. Of course it will have to convince Russia (and China) -- might as well wish for the moon. And I don't buy the crap that UN membership is not important to "Kosova" -- otherwise Hyseni and Co. will not be flying there all the time.
(lowe, 22 August 2010 13:09)

UN membership is important, the same way WB, IMF, EU memberships are important. But they don't have anything to do with the “ultimate symbol of independence”.

Ukraine and Belarus have been UN members since 1945 and we all know how "independent" they were from Moscow until 1991. On the other side, Switzerland only entered UN in 2002, and we all know how "not independent" Switzerland was before then.

As you can see, UN membership does not mean anything for independence purposes.

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 5
pss

pre 13 godina

An even more interesting thing is that Pristina itself will have to step outside if it wants to enter the UN -- the ultimate symbol of independence to the world. Of course it will have to convince Russia (and China) -- might as well wish for the moon. And I don't buy the crap that UN membership is not important to "Kosova" -- otherwise Hyseni and Co. will not be flying there all the time.
(lowe, 22 August 2010 13:09)
Kosovo is open to travel to any of more than 70 countries and to do business. This is enough to make success.
UN membership is an important goal but the question is lack of UN membership enough to risk returning to Serbian control- without UN membership?
What you are buying is of no consequence, it is what you are selling and right now it is at too high of price.
You consider it inconceivable for Serbia to accept Kosovo's independence when the most it means to Serbia is a bruised ego, but you think the people of Kosovo would return to a life of oppression because they do not have a UN seat?

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 12
lowe

pre 13 godina

"The interesting thing here is that Kosovo, US, UK, and EU are inside Kosovo saying they are implementing the Ahtissari Plan and Serbia and Russia are saying the A plan is dead--from the outside!
(pss, 22 August 2010 11:21)"

An even more interesting thing is that Pristina itself will have to step outside if it wants to enter the UN -- the ultimate symbol of independence to the world. Of course it will have to convince Russia (and China) -- might as well wish for the moon. And I don't buy the crap that UN membership is not important to "Kosova" -- otherwise Hyseni and Co. will not be flying there all the time.

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 4
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Is there something in the (a) general international law, or (b) special international law that prevents K-Serbs' to unilaterally declare independence from Kosovo ?

what's your opinion lowe ?
(icj1, 22 August 2010 03:29) "

I'm not a lawyer and so my opinion is that of the layman. And I don't know what is "special" international law, if there's indeed such a concept.

But what's there in international law that expressedly forbids K-Serbs (or K-Albanians or Eskimos for that matter) from declaring independence? It would appear to me that the mere declaration of UDI does not breach any international law. Especially when declaring a UDI from an entity that is not even a UN member and so whose status is unclear.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 3
miles

pre 13 godina

The non albanians of the north should hold an alternative protest election on the same day.

All those that see Kosovo as a part of Serbia can register their vote in some theatrical way in the alternative election. In this way they reject the land grab election but at the same time the world will see the overwhelming majority reject the elections in a media friendly way.

Otherwise the election will happpen, there might be some disturbances and the beliefs of the non albanians will be lost in the yank spin of a rebellious north.

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 4
pss

pre 13 godina

Does it matter why the plan was not approved in the UN as long as it wasn't?
For as long as there is Russia the A plan will stay in the garbage bin and there is NOTHING the US can do about it.
Let't not look at why something didn't get the green light because it doesn't matter. Let's look at the fact that it didn't get a green light and never will. EA, your A plan is dead and talking about it will not resurrect it. You will never implement it for that reason so grow up and start negotiating like an adult.
(Peggy, 22 August 2010 03:04)
The interesting thing here is that Kosovo, US, UK, and EU are inside Kosovo saying they are implementing the Ahtissari Plan and Serbia and Russia are saying the A plan is dead--from the outside!

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 10
Nikola

pre 13 godina

I hope Belgrade sees whats in front of them. The people occupying most of Kosovo from Pristina are trying to reach out to Kosovo Serbs in Mitrovica and any person could tell thats insanity.

They must try to bring the remaining Serb areas in KiM under their control if Belgrade does not accept a partition. A partition of Kosovo would be a partition of Serbia so that can't be a option.

Until then.. you will have people claiming a distinct country without it being fully under "one flag".

It's quite possible that one day in the future..K.Albos may make the same mistake that Saakashvili did. Over estimating their worth to the West.

The occupiers of Kosovo know that they do not have it all figured out and by putting Kosovo in limbo and in a status quo frozen conflict, semi state..whatever..it clearly benefits Serbia.

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 4
Ron

pre 13 godina

Just a "small" correction here. The plan was not approved by Russia because Serbia said so. In fact Russia was very much involved in the Ahtisari Plan but at the very last moment said "No" because of Serbia's objection. The issue has been and it will be that there would be no agreement between Kosovo and Serbia when it comes to the Status. That was why President Ahtisari came with the Plan. I hope you get the point!
(EA, 21 August 2010 15:53)

EA,

Then still: Russia did not vote for this plan. Only the UN can change Kosovo's status. Hope we agree on that. So as long as one 'veto power' actually does not agree the status will not be changed.

Same goes for Abkhazia and Tibet by the way!

Yes, US will veto Abkhazia. And China will veto Tibet and Taiwan.

That's how the UN works. You may not like that (and probably we agree on some points) but we will not make an exception for Kosovo.

Make an UDI if you want but fortunately we also got rules all have to obey!

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 7
Peggy

pre 13 godina

"He also expects that the implementation of the Ahtisaari plan would make more progress in the coming months"

Just a "small" correction here. The plan was not approved by Russia because Serbia said so. In fact Russia was very much involved in the Ahtisari Plan but at the very last moment said "No" because of Serbia's objection. The issue has been and it will be that there would be no agreement between Kosovo and Serbia when it comes to the Status. That was why President Ahtisari came with the Plan. I hope you get the point!
(EA, 21 August 2010 15:53)
=====================

Does it matter why the plan was not approved in the UN as long as it wasn't?
For as long as there is Russia the A plan will stay in the garbage bin and there is NOTHING the US can do about it.
Let't not look at why something didn't get the green light because it doesn't matter. Let's look at the fact that it didn't get a green light and never will. EA, your A plan is dead and talking about it will not resurrect it. You will never implement it for that reason so grow up and start negotiating like an adult.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 5
icj1

pre 13 godina

That's why the K-Serbs need not participate in this so called election. They should just declare independence from Pristina. After all, vide ICJ, they won't be going against international law with their own UDI, right?
(lowe, 21 August 2010 18:49)

Well, the ICJ did not say anything about K-Serbs' UDI. If declared, the UN GA has to ask the ICJ and then we will know the answer.

However, if you want to start discussing about its legality, the first question to ask is the following:

Is there something in the (a) general international law, or (b) special international law that prevents K-Serbs' to unilaterally declare independence from Kosovo ?

what's your opinion lowe ?

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 6
lowe

pre 13 godina

"You have my support for that. I don't know what's stopping them. O wait I know. Do you know? Either way if they decide to go that route then good for them. Don't expect any support from us though.
(johny, 21 August 2010 19:52) "

So glad to have your support -- although I can't figure out what you are trying to convey in the rest of your reply. But do stay of clear of Bajram Redzepi will you? He's sure to lynch you for showing your support!

Preporučujem 15 Ne preporučujem 7
kufr

pre 13 godina

@Ian, actually not. Serbs can not participate in elections arranged by Pristina because that would give those parallel institutions legitimacy. Instead the north should arrange their own elections. They will not be recognized by Pristina for the same reasons but it doesn't matter because Pristina itself is irrelevant as long as Belgrade doesn't recognize. And that just will not happen without serious negotiations, which have yet to take place.

Preporučujem 13 Ne preporučujem 7
RKS

pre 13 godina

The National Norse Mythology Agency in Washington DC has declared this chat to contain a non-Albanian/Serbian troll. Be advised a troll will serve no purpose but to annoy you. PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 28
johny

pre 13 godina

That's why the K-Serbs need not participate in this so called election. They should just declare independence from Pristina. After all, vide ICJ, they won't be going against international law with their own UDI, right?
(lowe, 21 August 2010 18:49)

You have my support for that. I don't know what's stopping them. O wait I know. Do you know? Either way if they decide to go that route then good for them. Don't expect any support from us though.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 18
johny

pre 13 godina

They might as well hold elections in Subotica too. It will generate the same effect.
(Mike, 21 August 2010 16:26)

Why not; seeing that Serbs have a phantom Prishtina mayor; who is a Serb representing nobody. Or at least they had one until a couple of months ago. Don't know if he's still fighting windmills.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 22
lowe

pre 13 godina

""international law"
Didn't Serbia asked the very same question to ICJ, and the answer was clear.
(Kosova-USA, 21 August 2010 18:09) "

That's why the K-Serbs need not participate in this so called election. They should just declare independence from Pristina. After all, vide ICJ, they won't be going against international law with their own UDI, right?

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 20
Kosova-USA

pre 13 godina

Never accept illegal Kosovo independence. This is much more important then Kosovo itself. It is about international law. And keeping promises (1244).

Please do not take part in these elections. Thanks in advance!
(Ron, 21 August 2010 14:04)


"international law"
Didn't Serbia asked the very same question to ICJ, and the answer was clear.

Preporučujem 32 Ne preporučujem 33
EA

pre 13 godina

"The plan, that was never approved by the UN Security Council, and was rejected by Belgrade..."

Just a "small" correction here. The plan was not approved by Russia because Serbia said so. In fact Russia was very much involved in the Ahtisari Plan but at the very last moment said "No" because of Serbia's objection. The issue has been and it will be that there would be no agreement between Kosovo and Serbia when it comes to the Status. That was why President Ahtisari came with the Plan. I hope you get the point!

Preporučujem 23 Ne preporučujem 29
Ron

pre 13 godina

As a non-Serb, non-Albanian I urge everybody (Serb, Albanian, other) NOT to take part in these illegal elections.

Never accept illegal Kosovo independence. This is much more important then Kosovo itself. It is about international law. And keeping promises (1244).

Please do not take part in these elections. Thanks in advance!

Preporučujem 37 Ne preporučujem 44
Ron

pre 13 godina

As a non-Serb, non-Albanian I urge everybody (Serb, Albanian, other) NOT to take part in these illegal elections.

Never accept illegal Kosovo independence. This is much more important then Kosovo itself. It is about international law. And keeping promises (1244).

Please do not take part in these elections. Thanks in advance!

Preporučujem 37 Ne preporučujem 44
Kosova-USA

pre 13 godina

Never accept illegal Kosovo independence. This is much more important then Kosovo itself. It is about international law. And keeping promises (1244).

Please do not take part in these elections. Thanks in advance!
(Ron, 21 August 2010 14:04)


"international law"
Didn't Serbia asked the very same question to ICJ, and the answer was clear.

Preporučujem 32 Ne preporučujem 33
EA

pre 13 godina

"The plan, that was never approved by the UN Security Council, and was rejected by Belgrade..."

Just a "small" correction here. The plan was not approved by Russia because Serbia said so. In fact Russia was very much involved in the Ahtisari Plan but at the very last moment said "No" because of Serbia's objection. The issue has been and it will be that there would be no agreement between Kosovo and Serbia when it comes to the Status. That was why President Ahtisari came with the Plan. I hope you get the point!

Preporučujem 23 Ne preporučujem 29
lowe

pre 13 godina

""international law"
Didn't Serbia asked the very same question to ICJ, and the answer was clear.
(Kosova-USA, 21 August 2010 18:09) "

That's why the K-Serbs need not participate in this so called election. They should just declare independence from Pristina. After all, vide ICJ, they won't be going against international law with their own UDI, right?

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 20
lowe

pre 13 godina

"You have my support for that. I don't know what's stopping them. O wait I know. Do you know? Either way if they decide to go that route then good for them. Don't expect any support from us though.
(johny, 21 August 2010 19:52) "

So glad to have your support -- although I can't figure out what you are trying to convey in the rest of your reply. But do stay of clear of Bajram Redzepi will you? He's sure to lynch you for showing your support!

Preporučujem 15 Ne preporučujem 7
kufr

pre 13 godina

@Ian, actually not. Serbs can not participate in elections arranged by Pristina because that would give those parallel institutions legitimacy. Instead the north should arrange their own elections. They will not be recognized by Pristina for the same reasons but it doesn't matter because Pristina itself is irrelevant as long as Belgrade doesn't recognize. And that just will not happen without serious negotiations, which have yet to take place.

Preporučujem 13 Ne preporučujem 7
miles

pre 13 godina

The non albanians of the north should hold an alternative protest election on the same day.

All those that see Kosovo as a part of Serbia can register their vote in some theatrical way in the alternative election. In this way they reject the land grab election but at the same time the world will see the overwhelming majority reject the elections in a media friendly way.

Otherwise the election will happpen, there might be some disturbances and the beliefs of the non albanians will be lost in the yank spin of a rebellious north.

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 4
Nikola

pre 13 godina

I hope Belgrade sees whats in front of them. The people occupying most of Kosovo from Pristina are trying to reach out to Kosovo Serbs in Mitrovica and any person could tell thats insanity.

They must try to bring the remaining Serb areas in KiM under their control if Belgrade does not accept a partition. A partition of Kosovo would be a partition of Serbia so that can't be a option.

Until then.. you will have people claiming a distinct country without it being fully under "one flag".

It's quite possible that one day in the future..K.Albos may make the same mistake that Saakashvili did. Over estimating their worth to the West.

The occupiers of Kosovo know that they do not have it all figured out and by putting Kosovo in limbo and in a status quo frozen conflict, semi state..whatever..it clearly benefits Serbia.

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 4
lowe

pre 13 godina

"The interesting thing here is that Kosovo, US, UK, and EU are inside Kosovo saying they are implementing the Ahtissari Plan and Serbia and Russia are saying the A plan is dead--from the outside!
(pss, 22 August 2010 11:21)"

An even more interesting thing is that Pristina itself will have to step outside if it wants to enter the UN -- the ultimate symbol of independence to the world. Of course it will have to convince Russia (and China) -- might as well wish for the moon. And I don't buy the crap that UN membership is not important to "Kosova" -- otherwise Hyseni and Co. will not be flying there all the time.

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 4
johny

pre 13 godina

They might as well hold elections in Subotica too. It will generate the same effect.
(Mike, 21 August 2010 16:26)

Why not; seeing that Serbs have a phantom Prishtina mayor; who is a Serb representing nobody. Or at least they had one until a couple of months ago. Don't know if he's still fighting windmills.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 22
RKS

pre 13 godina

The National Norse Mythology Agency in Washington DC has declared this chat to contain a non-Albanian/Serbian troll. Be advised a troll will serve no purpose but to annoy you. PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 28
Ron

pre 13 godina

Just a "small" correction here. The plan was not approved by Russia because Serbia said so. In fact Russia was very much involved in the Ahtisari Plan but at the very last moment said "No" because of Serbia's objection. The issue has been and it will be that there would be no agreement between Kosovo and Serbia when it comes to the Status. That was why President Ahtisari came with the Plan. I hope you get the point!
(EA, 21 August 2010 15:53)

EA,

Then still: Russia did not vote for this plan. Only the UN can change Kosovo's status. Hope we agree on that. So as long as one 'veto power' actually does not agree the status will not be changed.

Same goes for Abkhazia and Tibet by the way!

Yes, US will veto Abkhazia. And China will veto Tibet and Taiwan.

That's how the UN works. You may not like that (and probably we agree on some points) but we will not make an exception for Kosovo.

Make an UDI if you want but fortunately we also got rules all have to obey!

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 7
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Is there something in the (a) general international law, or (b) special international law that prevents K-Serbs' to unilaterally declare independence from Kosovo ?

what's your opinion lowe ?
(icj1, 22 August 2010 03:29) "

I'm not a lawyer and so my opinion is that of the layman. And I don't know what is "special" international law, if there's indeed such a concept.

But what's there in international law that expressedly forbids K-Serbs (or K-Albanians or Eskimos for that matter) from declaring independence? It would appear to me that the mere declaration of UDI does not breach any international law. Especially when declaring a UDI from an entity that is not even a UN member and so whose status is unclear.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 3
johny

pre 13 godina

That's why the K-Serbs need not participate in this so called election. They should just declare independence from Pristina. After all, vide ICJ, they won't be going against international law with their own UDI, right?
(lowe, 21 August 2010 18:49)

You have my support for that. I don't know what's stopping them. O wait I know. Do you know? Either way if they decide to go that route then good for them. Don't expect any support from us though.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 18
Peggy

pre 13 godina

"He also expects that the implementation of the Ahtisaari plan would make more progress in the coming months"

Just a "small" correction here. The plan was not approved by Russia because Serbia said so. In fact Russia was very much involved in the Ahtisari Plan but at the very last moment said "No" because of Serbia's objection. The issue has been and it will be that there would be no agreement between Kosovo and Serbia when it comes to the Status. That was why President Ahtisari came with the Plan. I hope you get the point!
(EA, 21 August 2010 15:53)
=====================

Does it matter why the plan was not approved in the UN as long as it wasn't?
For as long as there is Russia the A plan will stay in the garbage bin and there is NOTHING the US can do about it.
Let't not look at why something didn't get the green light because it doesn't matter. Let's look at the fact that it didn't get a green light and never will. EA, your A plan is dead and talking about it will not resurrect it. You will never implement it for that reason so grow up and start negotiating like an adult.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 5
pss

pre 13 godina

Does it matter why the plan was not approved in the UN as long as it wasn't?
For as long as there is Russia the A plan will stay in the garbage bin and there is NOTHING the US can do about it.
Let't not look at why something didn't get the green light because it doesn't matter. Let's look at the fact that it didn't get a green light and never will. EA, your A plan is dead and talking about it will not resurrect it. You will never implement it for that reason so grow up and start negotiating like an adult.
(Peggy, 22 August 2010 03:04)
The interesting thing here is that Kosovo, US, UK, and EU are inside Kosovo saying they are implementing the Ahtissari Plan and Serbia and Russia are saying the A plan is dead--from the outside!

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 10
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Kosovo is open to travel to any of more than 70 countries and to do business. This is enough to make success.
UN membership is an important goal but the question is lack of UN membership enough to risk returning to Serbian control- without UN membership?
What you are buying is of no consequence, it is what you are selling and right now it is at too high of price.
You consider it inconceivable for Serbia to accept Kosovo's independence when the most it means to Serbia is a bruised ego, but you think the people of Kosovo would return to a life of oppression because they do not have a UN seat?
(pss, 22 August 2010 20:35) "

Kosovo open for business? You mean open to receive foreign aid and alms from other countries -- well, if that's your idea of business "success", I would certainly beg to differ.

What I buy may be of no consequence to you, but I will bet you what the UNSC will (or won't) buy matters plenty to "Kosova". And Pristina can jolly well expect to receive NO business from the UN as far as membership is concerned. Of course, Hyseni can always come to visit. But then so can you and I. No big deal!

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 6
lowe

pre 13 godina

"they will not have to "convince" russia and china...

wekk first they need to get through the General Assembly...and then the security council veto comes into play...not before.

the question is IF russia and china will be willing to burn up the enormous political capital by going against a majority of un members to throw out a veto on behalf of a foreign country it has no real vested interests in.

whats "wishing for the moon" is the certainty serb apologists have that they will do so. The more recognition kosovo receives the MORE likely they are... particularly china, to simply make a "principled stance" and absain from voting for the sake of political lipservice, rather than an outright veto.
(AdamNYC, 23 August 2010 01:21) "

how is Pristina gonna enter the UN without convincing Russia and China in the UNSC????? A veto is a veto and takes effect the moment it is cast to block any resolution.

As for Russia and China “going against a majority of un members”, aren’t you counting your chickens before they hatch? The majority of UN members have still NOT yet officially recognized Pristina.
As for vested interests, believe me, nobody has more vested interest in Kosovo’s status than the Chinese. I’m referring to the implications for Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang of course. Nothing is more scared to Beijing than the concept of sovereignty and non-violation of territorial integrity. Your wish that they will abstain is, as I said, wishing for the moon!

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 6
lowe

pre 13 godina

"UN membership is important, the same way WB, IMF, EU memberships are important. But they don't have anything to do with the “ultimate symbol of independence”.

Ukraine and Belarus have been UN members since 1945 and we all know how "independent" they were from Moscow until 1991. On the other side, Switzerland only entered UN in 2002, and we all know how "not independent" Switzerland was before then.

As you can see, UN membership does not mean anything for independence purposes.
(icj1, 23 August 2010 01:08)"

Why don’t you ask Pristina whether UN membership is important or not? I could have sworn the way Hyseni kept making a beeline for the UN HQ and the correspondences that Pristina sends to the UN that membership is among the top of Pristina’s wish list.
I don’t think Switzerland is an appropriate example to cite. Switzerland has a long, long history of nationhood and was recognized by practically the entire world before UN membership. Nobody disputed the Swiss as a sovereigh nation. You can’t say the same thing for “Kosova”. It has no history of existence as a nation prior to 2008 and today its claims to sovereignty is far from universally accepted.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 5
pss

pre 13 godina

An even more interesting thing is that Pristina itself will have to step outside if it wants to enter the UN -- the ultimate symbol of independence to the world. Of course it will have to convince Russia (and China) -- might as well wish for the moon. And I don't buy the crap that UN membership is not important to "Kosova" -- otherwise Hyseni and Co. will not be flying there all the time.
(lowe, 22 August 2010 13:09)
Kosovo is open to travel to any of more than 70 countries and to do business. This is enough to make success.
UN membership is an important goal but the question is lack of UN membership enough to risk returning to Serbian control- without UN membership?
What you are buying is of no consequence, it is what you are selling and right now it is at too high of price.
You consider it inconceivable for Serbia to accept Kosovo's independence when the most it means to Serbia is a bruised ego, but you think the people of Kosovo would return to a life of oppression because they do not have a UN seat?

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 12
icj1

pre 13 godina

An even more interesting thing is that Pristina itself will have to step outside if it wants to enter the UN -- the ultimate symbol of independence to the world. Of course it will have to convince Russia (and China) -- might as well wish for the moon. And I don't buy the crap that UN membership is not important to "Kosova" -- otherwise Hyseni and Co. will not be flying there all the time.
(lowe, 22 August 2010 13:09)

UN membership is important, the same way WB, IMF, EU memberships are important. But they don't have anything to do with the “ultimate symbol of independence”.

Ukraine and Belarus have been UN members since 1945 and we all know how "independent" they were from Moscow until 1991. On the other side, Switzerland only entered UN in 2002, and we all know how "not independent" Switzerland was before then.

As you can see, UN membership does not mean anything for independence purposes.

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 5
AdamNYC

pre 13 godina

@lowe

they will not have to "convince" russia and china...

wekk first they need to get through the General Assembly...and then the security council veto comes into play...not before.

the question is IF russia and china will be willing to burn up the enormous political capital by going against a majority of un members to throw out a veto on behalf of a foreign country it has no real vested interests in.

whats "wishing for the moon" is the certainty serb apologists have that they will do so. The more recognition kosovo receives the MORE likely they are... particularly china, to simply make a "principled stance" and absain from voting for the sake of political lipservice, rather than an outright veto.

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 6
icj1

pre 13 godina

That's why the K-Serbs need not participate in this so called election. They should just declare independence from Pristina. After all, vide ICJ, they won't be going against international law with their own UDI, right?
(lowe, 21 August 2010 18:49)

Well, the ICJ did not say anything about K-Serbs' UDI. If declared, the UN GA has to ask the ICJ and then we will know the answer.

However, if you want to start discussing about its legality, the first question to ask is the following:

Is there something in the (a) general international law, or (b) special international law that prevents K-Serbs' to unilaterally declare independence from Kosovo ?

what's your opinion lowe ?

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 6
lowe

pre 13 godina

“Agreed, Kosovo’s claim to sovereignty is far from universally accepted or not accepted. But I don’t get how UN membership has anything to do with that. Assume that Kosovo is recognized by all states in the world (including Serbia) and only Russia refuses to recognize it, so Kosovo can’t become a UN member. Would that mean that Kosovo is not an independent state ?

And, I still did not see any objection on your side to my example on Ukraine and Belarus. So I take it that you’d agree with me that UN membership is not the “ultimate symbol of independence”.
(icj1, 24 August 2010 05:31)”

Then let me clarify once and for all. UN membership is not a compulsory condition for independence. That said however, it cannot be denied that most newly independent countries do desire UN membership and in fact make a beeline to apply for that UN membership. I think they did so because they perceive that being accepted into the UN represents the ultimate symbol of the world’s acceptance of your independent status. Look at the ex-Yugoslav republics Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia and Montenegro for example. In this sense, it is not enough for a new country just to have its flag, constitution, diplomatic relations, army – they also want UN membership. Achieving that membership however depends on the big boys in the UNSC.

Byelorussia and Ukraine did have UN membership – you seemed to view that they were colonies of Moscow. I think this is the common perception by the West. I am not familiar with the histories of these countries but isn’t it just possible that the then governments in these 2 countries saw themselves as being inside the USSR of their own free will? The West had to accept their membership as a compromise to Moscow’s demands for all republics inside the USSR to have UN membership. Constitutionally the USSR is a union of republics.

What I am trying to say is that it is all a matter of perception. What the West (and you) perceive need not be what others perceive. In terms of symbols however, Byelorussia and Ukraine were accepted as independent nations by the UN with voting rights and all. And I think I am right to say that, whatever opinion you or I hold about what UN membership means, Pristina DOES indeed desire this membership for itself.

As for your other hypothetical scenario (unlikely to materialize in my opinion) where Russia alone refuses to allow Kosovo entry into UN – that would deprive Kosovo of a powerful symbol of statehood won’t it? They will then be as miffed as the Taiwanese since they do desire UN membership. I am talking perception (that symbols convey) not legalities here of course.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

johny,

Yes, I had initially thought that the UDI went against 1244. But the ICJ has since ruled that this declaration itself does not violate 1244. So the mere declaration of independence does not violate international law – which means North Kosovo and Strpce, for example, will not be violating international law if they were to do their own UDIs too. The ICJ however did not rule whether Kosovo is a state or not.

Whatever Serbia, Pristina and their respectaive supporters perceive and feel about the UDI, the UN and statehood issues, there is no denying that UN entry for Kosovo remains a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

icj1,

“That’s your perception. I have not heard anybody speaking in the names of those countries and saying that they want to be accepted in the UN in order to have their independence accepted. Many states, actually the majority, believed Kosovo was a country when called to vote for its admission to the WB and IMF. They did not wait for the UN.”

What other compelling reasons could there be, in your opinion, for joining the UN if not for the sake of getting affirmation of statehood? I am sure socialising wasn’t at the top of the agenda for any new applicant. Only independent states can join the UN. Of course in the case of Ukraine and Byelorussia, the West was compelled to treat them as independent states for purpose of admission whatever their own opinions.

As for the WB and IMF, the voting is not based on one-member-one-vote. So is the majority that you stated based on number of members or their voting allocation? In any case, the voting is not as democratic as say, the UN General Assembly.

“Ha, ha, ha…. “free will” !!!. I’m not disputing what they were or were not constitutionally; constitution was no more than a piece of paper for Stalin. My point is how independent was the Ukraine government in 1950 to take a decision to, say, stipulate a treaty with China. If they even thought about that, some hundreds of people would have ended up with a bullet in their head and some other thousands would have been sent for some long “vacation” in Siberia. “

In my opinion, you are passing judgement as an outsider on Ukraine’s status. If an insider (the Ukraine government of that time) felt then that they were independent or at least in a union of equals with Moscow, who’s to say then that you are definitely right or they are wrong? Is it not possible that insiders have access to information unavailable to the guessing outsiders? Isn’t it possible that Kiev considered themselves, as a constituent part of the USSR, to have entrusted the right to make treaties with China or other countries to the USSR government? If the Ukrainians did perceive things that way, on what basis then can outsiders then can claim to know better? As for Stalin himself, he was reviled but he had many admirers too. Is it farfetched to expect that some of these admirers who shared his socialist ideals came from within the old Ukrainian government itself? My basic point is that outsiders have to make a really strong case if they claim to know more about Ukraine than the Ukranians themselves – certainly you need much more than just a dismissive “ha ha ha”.


“If Pristina were offered a UN membership with the condition that it should be under Serbia (the same as the Ukraine and Belarus’ memberships under USSR), they would run as far as they can from New York. “

Pristina would. My point however was that Ukraine and Belarus (Byelorussia) didn’t. Even come 1991, both countries didn’t renounce their UN seats to reapply as a matter of principle to make a point that they were unhappy with the USSR. Nor to my knowledge did they expressed regret or dissatisfaction with the way they gained UN membership after World War 2.


“Lowe, I’m not discussing about legalities either; I’m discussing about the reality. All your discussion is about symbolic independence or independence on paper. I don’t think Pristina wants that. They want the real independence.
(icj1, 25 August 2010 08:09)”

Then we are right back to the starting point. As already established, you don’t need UN membership to be independent. Half of the reality is that Pristina wants UN membership. The other half however is that it cannot hope to get that membership anytime soon.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

(icj1, 27 August 2010 05:35)

“Wooow… 192 countries that need to maintain the affirmation of their statehood !!! That’s scary… According to Lowe’s logic, Vatican is the only country in the world which does not need affirmation of its statehood. But that’s understandable; it has divine affirmation… ha, ha, ha… “

You are evading the question that I posed you with another contrived question of your own. I wanted to know what other compelling reasons you may have to suggest why new states apply for UN membership other than to affirm their independent status. You have chosen to make light sport of it. I could only therefore conclude that you don’t have any alternative good reason to offer.

As for the Vatican's divinity, I am sure their God would not be going "ha ha ha" anytime soon over the amount of sex abuse cases coming out of the Catholic churches according to news reports in recent times!


"So, you are saying “only” actually means “only except Ukraine and Belarus” ?"

I didn’t say that. Since only independent states can join the UN, it means the West had officially accepted Ukraine and Belarus as independent back then. I do not profess to know enough about Soviet history to know whether they were really independent or not. And you likewise should not summarily conclude that they were not in the absence of much more compelling evidence to support your position.


“I did not say the number of votes, which was easy for Kosovo to win since almost all developed countries have recognized it. I said the majority of countries. For WB, out of 106 countries which submitted the ballot, 96 voted for Kosovo and 10 against. For IMF, out of 103 countries which submitted the vote, 96 voted for Kosovo (including 13 new countries which did not vote for WB), and 7 against. So, in total, between WB and IMF, 109 countries supported Kosovo (96+13).”

Ok, I just wanted you to clarify the voting system that you referred to. Another question – do the charters (I think that’s the legal term used) of both these financial institutions require members to be independent states? If they do not, then really the comparison with UN entry is inappropriate.


“Of course you are right. If they thought otherwise, they would have easily joined the 20+ millions that Stalin sent back to the creator. “

Where did you get your “20* million” figure from? From Western sources? How objective are they?


“I don’t pretend to know what the government of Ukraine believed; it was irrelevant for Stalin. The thing I know is that they were not independent. No amount of UN membership could change that. You sound like you’re coming from Mars and are seeing for the first time Stalin’s name”

Since you admit not knowing what the Ukrainians believed, you should not be dismissing them as Stalin’s servants. They could well have voluntarily delegated their rights to the Soviet government to act on their behalf. And if they did so, Stalin’s frightfulness (to you) becomes irrelevant. You claimed “to know that they are not independent”. Again, where did you get your info from? Western sources again? Your sources may hail from earth but even Martians would question their objectivity.


“Because Stalin needed them there to vote as he wanted. He didn’t care what they wanted”

Again a sweeping but unsubstantiated statement from you. How do you know that he was not defending their claims to UN membership as independent states in the face of Western opposition?


“I did not say they were unhappy with USSR or the way they gained UN membership. I’m not in their minds. I said they were not independent from 1945 to 1991. “

That’s your view. But if they had felt themselves to be independent, I would tend to take their point of view rather than yours. As I already stated in my earlier post, I am unaware of the present governments of Ukraine and Belarus having expressed any reservations or anger at the way they were admitted to the UN back then.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“Education is mostly a matter of state and local governments in the US, so saying that $375 billion is far exceeding US spending on education is wrong as you forgot to include state and local governments. Be more careful with the “facts” you post in these forums.
(icj1, 11 September 2010 05:09)”

Nevertheless the fact remains that the US (whichever the level of government) has to pay far, far more to its creditors in interests for humongous debts than on essentials like education.

At the end of the day, the various parts all sum up to just one US economy.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“Dude, it’s the third time, I think, I’m saying it. These numbers are correct, but they don’t support your argument. You can’t say the fact that the sun rises in the east (which is obviously correct) proves that Manchester United is the best European soccer team.

To use your “fact” from above to support your statement, you should correct your statement to say the “US federal expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. Saying “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education” is false and your numbers above refer to “US federal” not “US”.

Alternatively, you can keep your statement, but change the "fact" and find another source that supports your statement.”

Did I talk about the sun or soccer? I was talking about the US’s huge debts and its resulting huge interest payments. Debts and interest payments are related in the way that the sun and soccer aren't and so your logic is, to me, illogical.

As for the numbers, they showed that the $375 billion spent on repayment could have been used for other things, including education. You can say more than 3 times -- say it 3 million times if you like – but ithis still won’t change the fact that having to repay $375 billion is no small change by any standard. At the end of the day, the debts are still America’s to bear – whether it is federal level or state level or municipal level, they are still America’s interest payments.


“Slow there… it was a hypothetical example that even an untrained mind in finance can easily understand, to prove that debt can be good. Of course that is not a real life example, I never claimed that, but the US does give a lot of money to other countries.

If you want to go into real finance, a real life example would be that the US sells 30 Year Treasury Bonds at 4% for $1,000,000,000 and uses the sale proceeds to build a tunnel linking NJ to Manhattan, then from the tolls that it charges to the cars using the tunnel it gets an ROI of 5%, thus making a profit. To determine what the tolls should be to make that 5% return in 10 years, we need to run a discounted cash flow analysis to determine the NPV and the IRR; let me know if you need help with that.”

So the US government borrows huge amounts from others, including foreigners, to build that tunnel? Because it can’t afford to build one because it doesn’t have the ready cash? And then covers itself by charges US drivers the tolls? End of the day, it is still Americans bearing the costs of the huge interest payments.


“I proved with math that you can get a profit from debt; if something gets you a profit, you do it. Of course you have to pay something; you can’t have a return without investing (you can’t have a free lunch) – the point is whether your return is higher than the money invested. The banks worldwide make huge profits by borrowing (they take your deposits at, say, 1%, and lend them at 6%). Math is an exact science. We can continue to argue here as long as you want, but that will not change the fact that 6% is larger than 1% and you can make a profit by borrowing. “

You are conveniently assuming that the US borrows huge sums for investment purposes. I would tend to think the huge borrowings were for immediate gratification (consumption purposes) rather than investments.


“I did not say the debt is entirely for good purposes. I said that that before giving a judgment on whether the debt is good or bad, we need to consider the purpose. Did your source indicate what the debt is being used for? Tell us that and then we can say whether the debt is good or bad.
(icj1, 1 October 2010 04:30)”

The source quoted Obama as telling Americans that “We are out of money”. If the debts had been for “good purposes” don’t you think the American government would have already pounced on that before the electorate?

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“It was an analogy… let me know if you need help to understand when something is an analogy. I had to use it so that you could see in a more simple way what your logic meant.”

Your analogy has to make sense. Debts and interest payments are definitely linked. But the sun and Manchester United are linked only in your own dreams.



“I did not dispute the “$375 billion spent on repayment…. etc..”. I disputed your “fact” that “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. That is false. The “$375 billion etc…” supports a statement about “US federal” not “US””

Federal or non-federal, that debt is still Americans’ to repay with huge interests – no running away from this unless they elect to default. The burden is still Americans’.

And the $375 billion is still much larger than the $50 billion spent on the education that was cited by the source. There’s no running away from the numbers.

“Exactly… have you heard about the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; a local government entity. How did they build the tunnels and bridges that they own ? Through selling debt and repaying it with tolls that they charge and making a profit out of that. For example, in 2009, it’s true that they paid 0.5 billion in interest, but they collected 1.1 billion in tolls and after considering all other revenues and expenses they made a profit of 0.85 billion (see page 16 of their financial statements below).

I don’t see anybody bearing a cost here: the bottom line is a profit and that’s what matters.
[link]

One of the golden rules of finance is that if you can borrow (not everybody can; you need good credit history) you should borrow for capital investments. Financially, it does not make sense to wait to have all cash needed to make a capital investment (let me know if you need help to understand why, but it’s going to be a finance lecture), unless you are forced to, because your credit history does not allow you to borrow. On an individual level, if people followed your logic, most of them could never own a home until they are about to die, because only at that time they would have accumulated enough cash to buy the home.”

So the New Jersey government made a profit out of their debts which I supposed has been fully repaid in a relatively short time. But I was talking about America’s multi-trillion dollar debts the principal of which remained unrepaid to date and appears to show signs of growing even further. It is not exactly the same as the New Jersey scenario where borrowings was repaid and led to a profit in a short time.

As for your take on home ownership through mortgage – wasn’t this precisely the major course for the US’s recent financial problems and housing market debacle? The likes of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mae extending absurd, unsustainable mortgages to Americans who later couldn’t financially support the repayments and had to have their properties repossessed. Which was widespread enough to cause the property collapse. Of course, I don’t have the numerical evidence – but this was a report that I saw on CNN and the news media was full of such coverage at that time.

“No I did not assume that; I said it over and over again; it depends on the purpose. You appear convinced on the “bad” part, that’s why I’m bringing you only arguments for the “good” part, because for the “bad” your are already convinced so I don’t have to convince you about that. So, I'm not assuming neither "good" or "bad". “

The bad part appears more plausible to me as I am not aware of Americans themselves publicly waxing praises about their nation’s debts today. Are you?


“Sometimes they have said that. For example the US treasury made sometimes huge profits from borrowing to bail out banks (for example Citigroup).

That being said, the last thing I’d trust are the words of politicians. I need the facts to form an opinion, and not what somebody says. So far, I’ve not seen and you did not provide any fact how the borrowed funds are used. So I agree with you that US is borrowing a lot and also pays interest, but I can’t tell how much that is good or bad without any fact what that money is being used for.
(icj1, 16 October 2010 03:18)”
I don’t think the US would dare to show its people how the funds are really being used – my hunch would be that a lot of it was possibly used to finance wasteful activities like the futile military adventures in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- and still remains to be repaid (with interests of course) without reaping of profits or dividends.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“lowe I remember clearly some arguments we had on this issue and you had opposite opinion. I remember long copy-paste from 1244 etc etc. You've changed your tune.


Now on the UN. UN is not the urgent issue here. There are many other issues we have to deal first. As a matter of fact even Albania was vetoed out from the UN several times from a Russian veto; thanks to our best friends the Serbs and the Greeks who claimed Albania was their heartland. So you know being vetoed out doesn't mean you're not independent or you're not going to ever be independent. Norway was vetoed as well if I am not mistaken. Being vetoed out a couple of times is not really the ultimate defeat. It has been proven through history and through other UN members as well that one UN veto doesn't make you or break you. What matters is international support. Once you have that with time the veto will eventually not be used. Even if things fail miserably and we're vetoed eternally being directly tied to the EU and the US and having international support and the blessing of the West, beats what Serbia's constitution allows for any-day, any-time. There is not a single question about it. So despite the gloomy future you try lowe I remember clearly some arguments we had on this issue and you had opposite opinion. I remember long copy-paste from 1244 etc etc. You've changed your tune.


Now on the UN. UN is not the urgent issue here. There are many other issues we have to deal first. As a matter of fact even Albania was vetoed out from the UN several times from a Russian veto; thanks to our best friends the Serbs and the Greeks who claimed Albania was their heartland. So you know being vetoed out doesn't mean you're not independent or you're not going to ever be independent. Norway was vetoed as well if I am not mistaken. Being vetoed out a couple of times is not really the ultimate defeat. It has been proven through history and through other UN members as well that one UN veto doesn't make you or break you. What matters is international support. Once you have that with time the veto will eventually not be used. Even if things fail miserably and we're vetoed eternally being directly tied to the EU and the US and having international support and the blessing of the West, beats what Serbia's constitution allows for any-day, any-time. There is not a single question about it. So despite the gloomy future you try to paint for us, such a gloomy-future is way brighter than anything the Serbian constitution allows for.
(johny, 24 August 2010 08:21)”

What opposite view did I hold previously? Perhaps you could clearly enlighten me instead of going round in riddles.

I never said that UN membership was compulsory for independence. But on the other hand, however, most countries do quickly apply for UN membership once they gained independence – because these new countries obviously did associate UN membership as a symbol of the international community’s confirmation of their independent status. Look at Montenegro for example. Can you honestly say that Pristina doesn’t care for UN membership? Then what is Hyseni doing at the UNHQ? To sightsee as a repeat tourist? I think not. But desiring UN membership is one thing, gaining membership is a different thing – my other point simply was that “Kosova” in any case has no hope of UN entry anytime soon because of Russia and China. And many countries (INCLUDING China) do see your UDI as a formidable threat to their own ethnic problems.

I’m not trying to “paint” a false gloomy future for “Kosova”. Objectively from the news reports (including from pro-Pristina sources) you guys do appear to be headed for that gloomy future! See for example http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?lng=en&id=114977

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Ok, I just wanted you to clarify the voting system that you referred to. Another question – do the charters (I think that’s the legal term used) of both these financial institutions require members to be independent states? If they do not, then really the comparison with UN entry is inappropriate.
(lowe, 27 August 2010 14:57)

For WB and IMF is called “Articles of Agreement”, but let’s call it charter for a shorter name.

So, no, none of the charters, be that WB, IMF or UN require members to be independent. They just require them to be a country.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 13 godina

"So, no, none of the charters, be that WB, IMF or UN require members to be independent. They just require them to be a country.
(icj1, 28 August 2010 18:29) "

I would have thought a country should be officially independent too.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"There are countries which are independent and others which are not. There is no such a thing as "officially independent". There does not exist an entity which issues certificates of independence to make the independence "official". That's a matter of reality, not paperwork.

In any case, none of the charters (UN, WB or IMF) requires the countries to be independent. All three just require them to be countries. And that's understandable, otherwise they would have to determine what independence means every time they have to admit a new member or expel an existing one.
(icj1, 29 August 2010 18:01) "

Is the concept of independence subjective or even irrelevant for entitites that claim to be countries then? Seems so to me from your explanation.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"On the other hand, it is relevant for entities to claim that they are countries because that gives them certain rights and privileges, like membership in the WB or IMF from where they can get loans. If they are not considered countries, than they need to have somebody else to get loans for them.
(icj1, 4 September 2010 15:53) "

You are wrong about IMF requiring members to be countries. Hongkong is an IMF member but it is not a country. In fact nobody sees Hongkong as a country, not even the Hongkongers themselves.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"According to IMF, Hong Kong is not a member, unless they forgot to include it in the list:

[link]
(icj1, 7 September 2010 06:21)"

"On the other hand, it is relevant for entities to claim that they are countries because that gives them certain rights and privileges, like membership in the WB or IMF from where they can get loans. If they are not considered countries, than they need to have somebody else to get loans for them.
(icj1, 4 September 2010 15:53) "

Yes, you are right about HK not being an IMF member.

And if IMF membership's main draw was to borrow funds from it, one wonders why the USA with the most humongous debt in the entire world did not see fit to tap on this IMF resource. Pride perhaps?

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Why should it do it when its issuing debt and borrowing in the capital markets at very low interest rates ?!!!

IMF and WB are for those who don't have easy/cheap access to capital markets to borrow because of their creditworthiness.
(icj1, 10 September 2010 04:40) "

Interests nevertheless still has to be paid right? And the interest payments will continue to baloon and baloon and baloon. http://www.federalbudget.com/

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, you always have to pay interest regardless where you borrow from (IMF or Capital markets). In addition, I'm not even sure the US would qualify for IMF loans. US is borrowing in the capital markets at historically low rates. Why should they go somewhere else ?!

They should actually issue more long term bonds to further benefit from these very low rates, so they can borrow less in the future when the rates may be higher.
(icj1, 10 September 2010 14:10) "

Even at these low interest rates, the interest payments, according to the source in the link I provided earlier, amounted to $375 billion, far exceeding what the US spends on, say education. And if interest rates were to go up in the future, well, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"I'm not sure if you don't get it or don't want to get it. I said before that the fact you mention above is wrong. What all levels of US government pay in interest is much smaller than the education expenditure of all levels of US government. See for example below:

[link]
(icj1, 12 September 2010 17:39) "

According to my link, the US Treasury Dept spent $375 billion on interest payments compared, which is huge compared with the $53 billion for education.

The issue here that I believe the source to be addressing was that these humongous interest payments represented an opportunity cost lost for the US economy. Because this money could have instead been used to pay for other things, including over 7 times the expenditure for education (education as defined by the source). Or if that $375 billion had hypothetically been given to Nasa, it could have paid for almost 20 times of the latter's expenditure. Its all about opportunity costs incurred by these interest payments.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“And that's correct, but it's the partial picture. You said, “US (whichever the level of government) has to pay far, far more to its creditors in interests for humongous debts than on essentials like education.”

The US Treasury department deals only with the Federal level outlays. The State and Local governments have their own treasuries. So, the fact you brought, about the “whichever the level of government“ is still false.

And I explained it before; the interest on the Federal level debt is 100% the responsibility of the US Treasury. The Education expenditure is for most part the responsibility of the State and Local governments (in the US, at least, not sure about Serbia). So you have to take all levels of government into account when you do the comparison. You can’t tell somebody why you don’t do something, when that thing is (mainly) somebody’s else job. “

Partial picture or not, the $375 billion of interest payments for federal debts could have been used to pay for educational and other expenses incurred at the federal level. Or be used for investments or other economically productive purposes.There is no running away from the opportunity costs foregone incurred by having to make these interest payments.


“The fact of taking debt is not bad on itself. That depends on what the debt is used for. If it’s used for investments (for example infrastructure), than the interest cost is offset by the future returns on that investment (on a more personal level, you buy a house by taking a loan from the bank – you pay interest, but you also rent the house thus generating rental income, and may have a profit out of that). If the debt is used for current expenditure, that’s not desirable.
(icj1, 18 September 2010 03:52)”

How do you know the debt was not used for current expenditure (now past expenditure)? And the huge interest payments continue regardless of the purpose of the debt.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“The point was to convince the readers that your “fact” that US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education was false and misleading. As for the opportunity cost part, see the numerical example below. “

Well, the source I quoted mentioned $375 billion for interest payments and $50 billion for education. The numbers seem pretty clear cut to me.


“I didn’t say that. I just explained that the debt being bad or not depends on its purpose. But I did not say what the purpose was as I don’t have the data. If you have it, let’s discuss it.”

Good or bad, they still incur interests which has to be paid, right? And paid again and again as long as the debts remain outstanding. And they will, given their humongous amount, remain outstanding for a long, long time, unless Washington chooses to default. If these debts are entirely for “good” purposes, then why the outcry from Americans themselves? I believe the source that I quoted to be American.


“And that would be fine if the funds obtained from that debt are generating a return higher than the interest payments. You can’t say “regardless” for the purpose of debt. If you want a simple numerical example: The US government borrows $1,000 at 2% interest rate (that’s an interest expense of $20/year). Now, the US Government lends that $1,000 to Russia at an interest rate of 3% (and Russia is happy with that because due to its lower credit rating it can only obtain debt at 4% in the capital markets). So the US government will receive $30/year in interest payments from Russia. On a net basis the US government is making a profit of $10/year from that $1,000 of debt. So, why shouldn’t the US government do it ?
(icj1, 25 September 2010 19:49)”

Is the US really in any position to lend money to anyone? I don’t have the data but I wouldn’t be surprised if most of their debts actually went into financing wasteful activities like their military bases overseas, misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, expensive social security programs for the pampered American electorate used to the good life, etc rather than on wealth generating activities that you seemed so confident about.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“It was an analogy… let me know if you need help to understand when something is an analogy. I had to use it so that you could see in a more simple way what your logic meant.”

Your analogy has to make sense. Debts and interest payments are definitely linked. But the sun and Manchester United are linked only in your own dreams.


“I did not dispute the “$375 billion spent on repayment…. etc..”. I disputed your “fact” that “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. That is false. The “$375 billion etc…” supports a statement about “US federal” not “US””

Federal or non-federal, that debt is still Americans’ to repay with huge interests – no running away from this unless they elect to default. The burden is still Americans’.

And the $375 billion is still much larger than the $50 billion spent on the education that was cited by the source. There’s no running away from the numbers.



“Exactly… have you heard about the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; a local government entity. How did they build the tunnels and bridges that they own ? Through selling debt and repaying it with tolls that they charge and making a profit out of that. For example, in 2009, it’s true that they paid 0.5 billion in interest, but they collected 1.1 billion in tolls and after considering all other revenues and expenses they made a profit of 0.85 billion (see page 16 of their financial statements below).

I don’t see anybody bearing a cost here: the bottom line is a profit and that’s what matters.
[link]

One of the golden rules of finance is that if you can borrow (not everybody can; you need good credit history) you should borrow for capital investments. Financially, it does not make sense to wait to have all cash needed to make a capital investment (let me know if you need help to understand why, but it’s going to be a finance lecture), unless you are forced to, because your credit history does not allow you to borrow. On an individual level, if people followed your logic, most of them could never own a home until they are about to die, because only at that time they would have accumulated enough cash to buy the home.”

So the New Jersey government made a profit out of their debts which I supposed has been fully repaid in a relatively short time. But I was talking about America’s multi-trillion dollar debts the principal of which remaining unrepaid to date and appears to show signs of growing even further. Its not exactly the same as the New Jersey scenario where borrowings was repaid and led to a profit in a short time.

As for your take on home ownership through mortgage – wasn’t this precisely the major course for the US’s recent financial problems and housing market debacle? The likes of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mae extending absurd, unsustainable mortgages to Americans who later couldn’t financially support the repayments and had to have their properties repossessed. Which was widespread enough to cause the property collapse. Of course, I don’t have the numerical evidence – but this was a report that I saw on CNN and the news media was full of such coverage at that time.

“No I did not assume that; I said it over and over again; it depends on the purpose. You appear convinced on the “bad” part, that’s why I’m bringing you only arguments for the “good” part, because for the “bad” your are already convinced so I don’t have to convince you about that. So, I'm not assuming neither "good" or "bad". “

The bad part appears more plausible to me as I am not aware of Americans themselves waxing praises about their nation’s debts today. Are you?


“Sometimes they have said that. For example the US treasury made sometimes huge profits from borrowing to bail out banks (for example Citigroup).

That being said, the last thing I’d trust are the words of politicians. I need the facts to form an opinion, and not what somebody says. So far, I’ve not seen and you did not provide any fact how the borrowed funds are used. So I agree with you that US is borrowing a lot and also pays interest, but I can’t tell how much that is good or bad without any fact what that money is being used for.
(icj1, 16 October 2010 03:18)”

I don’t think the US would dare to show its people how the funds are really being used – my hunch would be that a lot of it was possibly used to finance wasteful activities like the futile military adventures in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- and still remains to be repaid (with interests of course) without reaping profits or dividends.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Why don’t you ask Pristina whether UN membership is important or not? I could have sworn the way Hyseni kept making a beeline for the UN HQ and the correspondences that Pristina sends to the UN that membership is among the top of Pristina’s wish list.
(lowe, 23 August 2010 10:47)

I think we agree here and Hyseni agrees with us. Read my post again… I said “UN membership is important”


I don’t think Switzerland is an appropriate example to cite. Switzerland has a long, long history of nationhood and was recognized by practically the entire world before UN membership. Nobody disputed the Swiss as a sovereigh nation. You can’t say the same thing for “Kosova”. It has no history of existence as a nation prior to 2008 and today its claims to sovereignty is far from universally accepted.
(lowe, 23 August 2010 10:47)

Agreed, Kosovo’s claim to sovereignty is far from universally accepted or not accepted. But I don’t get how UN membership has anything to do with that. Assume that Kosovo is recognized by all states in the world (including Serbia) and only Russia refuses to recognize it, so Kosovo can’t become a UN member. Would that mean that Kosovo is not an independent state ?

And, I still did not see any objection on your side to my example on Ukraine and Belarus. So I take it that you’d agree with me that UN membership is not the “ultimate symbol of independence”.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
Mitrovica

pre 13 godina

So useless ... what do they expect ? 2% turnout to claim victory ? it is so pathetic ... what cannot they leave these Serbs alone and focus on developing their Albanian blackhole !!!

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
johny

pre 13 godina

But what's there in international law that expressedly forbids K-Serbs (or K-Albanians or Eskimos for that matter) from declaring independence? It would appear to me that the mere declaration of UDI does not breach any international law. Especially when declaring a UDI from an entity that is not even a UN member and so whose status is unclear.
(lowe, 22 August 2010 13:06)

lowe I remember clearly some arguments we had on this issue and you had opposite opinion. I remember long copy-paste from 1244 etc etc. You've changed your tune.


Now on the UN. UN is not the urgent issue here. There are many other issues we have to deal first. As a matter of fact even Albania was vetoed out from the UN several times from a Russian veto; thanks to our best friends the Serbs and the Greeks who claimed Albania was their heartland. So you know being vetoed out doesn't mean you're not independent or you're not going to ever be independent. Norway was vetoed as well if I am not mistaken. Being vetoed out a couple of times is not really the ultimate defeat. It has been proven through history and through other UN members as well that one UN veto doesn't make you or break you. What matters is international support. Once you have that with time the veto will eventually not be used. Even if things fail miserably and we're vetoed eternally being directly tied to the EU and the US and having international support and the blessing of the West, beats what Serbia's constitution allows for any-day, any-time. There is not a single question about it. So despite the gloomy future you try to paint for us, such a gloomy-future is way brighter than anything the Serbian constitution allows for.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
johny

pre 13 godina

lowe the argument we were having was that you were adamant that the declaration per se was against 1244. You believed that 1244 prohibited such a declaration. While I maintained that it is naive for a declaration, any declaration to be illegal because anyone can declare anything they want.


"Can you honestly say that Pristina doesn’t care for UN membership? Then what is Hyseni doing at the UNHQ? To sightsee as a repeat tourist? I think not."

-- That is not what I am saying. Of course Prishtina cares about UN membership. What I am saying is that not being a member or even being vetoed out does not necessarily mean ultimate defeat and failure and that because of that we should beg to be part of Serbia again. So that is why I mentioned Albania. It took several trials and a lot of time not to be vetoed, but they eventually became members. Others have gone through the same process. So this is a process and not an instantaneous event. So as a process this is different for different cases. The circumstances for each case are different. That results in faster, slower or no membership, based on the circumstances. So while UN membership is desirable, it certainly is not what makes you or what breaks you. One can exist as independent without UN membership. One can eventually become a member even after being vetoed. One can even not be recognized as a state by many and not be a member and still be better off than reintegrating. Examples of these exist all over the world. Considering Serbia's constitution even under the most extreme case when only a few Western countries support us, that is still being better off than reintegrating into Serbia. There are no incentives whatsoever that would make reintegration such a desirable thing. None. As a matter of fact the more time passes the more reasons we find why reintegration is such a wrong scenario for our future.

"But desiring UN membership is one thing, gaining membership is a different thing – my other point simply was that “Kosova” in any case has no hope of UN entry anytime soon because of Russia and China. And many countries (INCLUDING China) do see your UDI as a formidable threat to their own ethnic problems."

-- Yes that is correct. I believe I have addressed that above. Again UN membership does not constitute the end of it all, or the beginning of it all. It is highly desirable but not necessarily what will make or break our existence or our future away from Serbia. Also the circumstances existing now may not be the same as in the future. Nobody can predict what happens in the future. Claiming that Kosova will be vetoed eternally is short sighted.

"I’m not trying to “paint” a false gloomy future for “Kosova”. Objectively from the news reports (including from pro-Pristina sources) you guys do appear to be headed for that gloomy future!"

--In case you did not get it before. No matter how gloomy that future you or anyone paints is, it is way shinier compared to what the Serb constitution specifies. It is that simple. We have weighed the options and come to the conclusion. We don't need to go back to the 90's again to make up our minds again. We do not need to pay that price again to make up our minds again. Simple.



--As for the comment you made about perceptions. I agree with that. Your side can have your perceptions we can have ours. Your perceptions are not necessarily the reality for everyone out there, just like ours are not necessarily the reality for everyone out there. However we are ok with that as long as our perceptions constitutes the reality for ourselves and our supporters, while your side isn't. That is the difference. We have learned to live with it hence we don't beg you to sit with us; you haven't. You will be made to learn to live with it. Modus-vivendi is not being thrown out there for no reason.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

Then let me clarify once and for all. UN membership is not a compulsory condition for independence.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

Good that we established this because I was a little bit perplexed by the UN membership being the “ultimate symbol of independence”.


That said however, it cannot be denied that most newly independent countries do desire UN membership and in fact make a beeline to apply for that UN membership. I think they did so because they perceive that being accepted into the UN represents the ultimate symbol of the world’s acceptance of your independent status.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

That’s your perception. I have not heard anybody speaking in the names of those countries and saying that they want to be accepted in the UN in order to have their independence accepted. Many states, actually the majority, believed Kosovo was a country when called to vote for its admission to the WB and IMF. They did not wait for the UN.


Byelorussia and Ukraine did have UN membership – you seemed to view that they were colonies of Moscow. I think this is the common perception by the West. I am not familiar with the histories of these countries but isn’t it just possible that the then governments in these 2 countries saw themselves as being inside the USSR of their own free will? The West had to accept their membership as a compromise to Moscow’s demands for all republics inside the USSR to have UN membership. Constitutionally the USSR is a union of republics.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

Ha, ha, ha…. “free will” !!!. I’m not disputing what they were or were not constitutionally; constitution was no more than a piece of paper for Stalin. My point is how independent was the Ukraine government in 1950 to take a decision to, say, stipulate a treaty with China. If they even thought about that, some hundreds of people would have ended up with a bullet in their head and some other thousands would have been sent for some long “vacation” in Siberia.


In terms of symbols however, Byelorussia and Ukraine were accepted as independent nations by the UN with voting rights and all. And I think I am right to say that, whatever opinion you or I hold about what UN membership means, Pristina DOES indeed desire this membership for itself.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

If Pristina were offered a UN membership with the condition that it should be under Serbia (the same as the Ukraine and Belarus’ memberships under USSR), they would run as far as they can from New York.


As for your other hypothetical scenario (unlikely to materialize in my opinion) where Russia alone refuses to allow Kosovo entry into UN – that would deprive Kosovo of a powerful symbol of statehood won’t it? They will then be as miffed as the Taiwanese since they do desire UN membership. I am talking perception (that symbols convey) not legalities here of course.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

Lowe, I’m not discussing about legalities either; I’m discussing about the reality. All your discussion is about symbolic independence or independence on paper. I don’t think Pristina wants that. They want the real independence.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

What other compelling reasons could there be, in your opinion, for joining the UN if not for the sake of getting affirmation of statehood? I am sure socialising wasn’t at the top of the agenda for any new applicant.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

Wooow… 192 countries that need to maintain the affirmation of their statehood !!! That’s scary… According to Lowe’s logic, Vatican is the only country in the world which does not need affirmation of its statehood. But that’s understandable; it has divine affirmation… ha, ha, ha…


Only independent states can join the UN. Of course in the case of Ukraine and Byelorussia, the West was compelled to treat them as independent states for purpose of admission whatever their own opinions.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

So, you are saying “only” actually means “only except Ukraine and Belarus” ?


As for the WB and IMF, the voting is not based on one-member-one-vote. So is the majority that you stated based on number of members or their voting allocation? In any case, the voting is not as democratic as say, the UN General Assembly.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

I did not say the number of votes, which was easy for Kosovo to win since almost all developed countries have recognized it. I said the majority of countries. For WB, out of 106 countries which submitted the ballot, 96 voted for Kosovo and 10 against. For IMF, out of 103 countries which submitted the vote, 96 voted for Kosovo (including 13 new countries which did not vote for WB), and 7 against. So, in total, between WB and IMF, 109 countries supported Kosovo (96+13).


In my opinion, you are passing judgement as an outsider on Ukraine’s status. If an insider (the Ukraine government of that time) felt then that they were independent or at least in a union of equals with Moscow, who’s to say then that you are definitely right or they are wrong?
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

Of course you are right. If they thought otherwise, they would have easily joined the 20+ millions that Stalin sent back to the creator.


Is it not possible that insiders have access to information unavailable to the guessing outsiders? Isn’t it possible that Kiev considered themselves, as a constituent part of the USSR, to have entrusted the right to make treaties with China or other countries to the USSR government? If the Ukrainians did perceive things that way, on what basis then can outsiders then can claim to know better? As for Stalin himself, he was reviled but he had many admirers too. Is it farfetched to expect that some of these admirers who shared his socialist ideals came from within the old Ukrainian government itself? My basic point is that outsiders have to make a really strong case if they claim to know more about Ukraine than the Ukranians themselves – certainly you need much more than just a dismissive “ha ha ha”.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

I don’t pretend to know what the government of Ukraine believed; it was irrelevant for Stalin. The thing I know is that they were not independent. No amount of UN membership could change that. You sound like you’re coming from Mars and are seeing for the first time Stalin’s name.


“If Pristina were offered a UN membership with the condition that it should be under Serbia (the same as the Ukraine and Belarus’ memberships under USSR), they would run as far as they can from New York. “

Pristina would. My point however was that Ukraine and Belarus (Byelorussia) didn’t.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

Because Stalin needed them there to vote as he wanted. He didn’t care what they wanted.


Even come 1991, both countries didn’t renounce their UN seats to reapply as a matter of principle to make a point that they were unhappy with the USSR. Nor to my knowledge did they expressed regret or dissatisfaction with the way they gained UN membership after World War 2.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

I did not say they were unhappy with USSR or the way they gained UN membership. I’m not in their minds. I said they were not independent from 1945 to 1991.


Then we are right back to the starting point. As already established, you don’t need UN membership to be independent. Half of the reality is that Pristina wants UN membership. The other half however is that it cannot hope to get that membership anytime soon.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

Fully agree with all three points

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

"So, no, none of the charters, be that WB, IMF or UN require members to be independent. They just require them to be a country.
(icj1, 28 August 2010 18:29) "

I would have thought a country should be officially independent too.
(lowe, 29 August 2010 06:25)

There are countries which are independent and others which are not. There is no such a thing as "officially independent". There does not exist an entity which issues certificates of independence to make the independence "official". That's a matter of reality, not paperwork.

In any case, none of the charters (UN, WB or IMF) requires the countries to be independent. All three just require them to be countries. And that's understandable, otherwise they would have to determine what independence means every time they have to admit a new member or expel an existing one.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Is the concept of independence subjective or even irrelevant for entitites that claim to be countries then? Seems so to me from your explanation.
(lowe, 30 August 2010 01:50)

Of course it is subjective. The amount of independence is a continuum and there is no official definition where in this continuum you should be to be considered independent. Take Albania for example. Some may think it is not an independent country, because it partially depends on EU financial support. Is that thinking correct or not ? I don’t know.

On the other hand, it is relevant for entities to claim that they are countries because that gives them certain rights and privileges, like membership in the WB or IMF from where they can get loans. If they are not considered countries, than they need to have somebody else to get loans for them.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

You are wrong about IMF requiring members to be countries. Hongkong is an IMF member but it is not a country. In fact nobody sees Hongkong as a country, not even the Hongkongers themselves.
(lowe, 6 September 2010 11:30)

According to IMF, Hong Kong is not a member, unless they forgot to include it in the list:

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

And if IMF membership's main draw was to borrow funds from it, one wonders why the USA with the most humongous debt in the entire world did not see fit to tap on this IMF resource. Pride perhaps?
(lowe, 8 September 2010 14:03)

Why should it do it when its issuing debt and borrowing in the capital markets at very low interest rates ?!!!

IMF and WB are for those who don't have easy/cheap access to capital markets to borrow because of their creditworthiness.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Interests nevertheless still has to be paid right? And the interest payments will continue to baloon and baloon and baloon. [link]/
(lowe, 10 September 2010 10:00)

Of course, you always have to pay interest regardless where you borrow from (IMF or Capital markets). In addition, I'm not even sure the US would qualify for IMF loans. US is borrowing in the capital markets at historically low rates. Why should they go somewhere else ?!

They should actually issue more long term bonds to further benefit from these very low rates, so they can borrow less in the future when the rates may be higher.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

Even at these low interest rates, the interest payments, according to the source in the link I provided earlier, amounted to $375 billion, far exceeding what the US spends on, say education.
(lowe, 10 September 2010 15:06)

Education is mostly a matter of state and local governments in the US, so saying that $375 billion is far exceeding US spending on education is wrong as you forgot to include state and local governments. Be more careful with the “facts” you post in these forums.


And if interest rates were to go up in the future, well, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
(lowe, 10 September 2010 15:06)

That’s why I said that the US government needs to issue now more long term bonds. In any case the point was that US does not need (or even may not be able) to borrow from the IMF.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Nevertheless the fact remains that the US (whichever the level of government) has to pay far, far more to its creditors in interests for humongous debts than on essentials like education.
(lowe, 11 September 2010 09:53)

I'm not sure if you don't get it or don't want to get it. I said before that the fact you mention above is wrong. What all levels of US government pay in interest is much smaller than the education expenditure of all levels of US government. See for example below:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2009_US.html

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

According to my link, the US Treasury Dept spent $375 billion on interest payments compared, which is huge compared with the $53 billion for education.
(lowe, 13 September 2010 07:48)

And that's correct, but it's the partial picture. You said, “US (whichever the level of government) has to pay far, far more to its creditors in interests for humongous debts than on essentials like education.”

The US Treasury department deals only with the Federal level outlays. The State and Local governments have their own treasuries. So, the fact you brought, about the “whichever the level of government“ is still false.

And I explained it before; the interest on the Federal level debt is 100% the responsibility of the US Treasury. The Education expenditure is for most part the responsibility of the State and Local governments (in the US, at least, not sure about Serbia). So you have to take all levels of government into account when you do the comparison. You can’t tell somebody why you don’t do something, when that thing is (mainly) somebody’s else job.


The issue here that I believe the source to be addressing was that these humongous interest payments represented an opportunity cost lost for the US economy. Because this money could have instead been used to pay for other things, including over 7 times the expenditure for education (education as defined by the source). Or if that $375 billion had hypothetically been given to Nasa, it could have paid for almost 20 times of the latter's expenditure. Its all about opportunity costs incurred by these interest payments.
(lowe, 13 September 2010 07:48)

The fact of taking debt is not bad on itself. That depends on what the debt is used for. If it’s used for investments (for example infrastructure), than the interest cost is offset by the future returns on that investment (on a more personal level, you buy a house by taking a loan from the bank – you pay interest, but you also rent the house thus generating rental income, and may have a profit out of that). If the debt is used for current expenditure, that’s not desirable.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Partial picture or not, the $375 billion of interest payments for federal debts could have been used to pay for educational and other expenses incurred at the federal level. Or be used for investments or other economically productive purposes. There is no running away from the opportunity costs foregone incurred by having to make these interest payments.
(lowe, 19 September 2010 10:12)

The point was to convince the readers that your “fact” that US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education was false and misleading. As for the opportunity cost part, see the numerical example below.


How do you know the debt was not used for current expenditure (now past expenditure)?
(lowe, 19 September 2010 10:12)

I didn’t say that. I just explained that the debt being bad or not depends on its purpose. But I did not say what the purpose was as I don’t have the data. If you have it, let’s discuss it.


And the huge interest payments continue regardless of the purpose of the debt.
(lowe, 19 September 2010 10:12)

And that would be fine if the funds obtained from that debt are generating a return higher than the interest payments. You can’t say “regardless” for the purpose of debt. If you want a simple numerical example: The US government borrows $1,000 at 2% interest rate (that’s an interest expense of $20/year). Now, the US Government lends that $1,000 to Russia at an interest rate of 3% (and Russia is happy with that because due to its lower credit rating it can only obtain debt at 4% in the capital markets). So the US government will receive $30/year in interest payments from Russia. On a net basis the US government is making a profit of $10/year from that $1,000 of debt. So, why shouldn’t the US government do it ?

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

Well, the source I quoted mentioned $375 billion for interest payments and $50 billion for education. The numbers seem pretty clear cut to me.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:54)

Dude, it’s the third time, I think, I’m saying it. These numbers are correct, but they don’t support your argument. You can’t say the fact that the sun rises in the east (which is obviously correct) proves that Manchester United is the best European soccer team.

To use your “fact” from above to support your statement, you should correct your statement to say the “US federal expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. Saying “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education” is false and your numbers above refer to “US federal” not “US”.

Alternatively, you can keep your statement, but change the "fact" and find another source that supports your statement.


Is the US really in any position to lend money to anyone? I don’t have the data but I wouldn’t be surprised if most of their debts actually went into financing wasteful activities like their military bases overseas, misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, expensive social security programs for the pampered American electorate used to the good life, etc rather than on wealth generating activities that you seemed so confident about.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:54)

Slow there… it was a hypothetical example that even an untrained mind in finance can easily understand, to prove that debt can be good. Of course that is not a real life example, I never claimed that, but the US does give a lot of money to other countries.

If you want to go into real finance, a real life example would be that the US sells 30 Year Treasury Bonds at 4% for $1,000,000,000 and uses the sale proceeds to build a tunnel linking NJ to Manhattan, then from the tolls that it charges to the cars using the tunnel it gets an ROI of 5%, thus making a profit. To determine what the tolls should be to make that 5% return in 10 years, we need to run a discounted cash flow analysis to determine the NPV and the IRR; let me know if you need help with that.

Good or bad, they still incur interests which has to be paid, right? And paid again and again as long as the debts remain outstanding. And they will, given their humongous amount, remain outstanding for a long, long time, unless Washington chooses to default.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:54)

I proved with math that you can get a profit from debt; if something gets you a profit, you do it. Of course you have to pay something; you can’t have a return without investing (you can’t have a free lunch) – the point is whether your return is higher than the money invested. The banks worldwide make huge profits by borrowing (they take your deposits at, say, 1%, and lend them at 6%). Math is an exact science. We can continue to argue here as long as you want, but that will not change the fact that 6% is larger than 1% and you can make a profit by borrowing.


If these debts are entirely for “good” purposes, then why the outcry from Americans themselves? I believe the source that I quoted to be American.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:54)

I did not say the debt is entirely for good purposes. I said that that before giving a judgment on whether the debt is good or bad, we need to consider the purpose. Did your source indicate what the debt is being used for? Tell us that and then we can say whether the debt is good or bad.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

Did I talk about the sun or soccer? I was talking about the US’s huge debts and its resulting huge interest payments. Debts and interest payments are related in the way that the sun and soccer aren't and so your logic is, to me, illogical.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

It was an analogy… let me know if you need help to understand when something is an analogy. I had to use it so that you could see in a more simple way what your logic meant.

As for the numbers, they showed that the $375 billion spent on repayment could have been used for other things, including education. You can say more than 3 times -- say it 3 million times if you like – but ithis still won’t change the fact that having to repay $375 billion is no small change by any standard. At the end of the day, the debts are still America’s to bear – whether it is federal level or state level or municipal level, they are still America’s interest payments.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

I did not dispute the “$375 billion spent on repayment…. etc..”. I disputed your “fact” that “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. That is false. The “$375 billion etc…” supports a statement about “US federal” not “US”.


So the US government borrows huge amounts from others, including foreigners, to build that tunnel? Because it can’t afford to build one because it doesn’t have the ready cash? And then covers itself by charges US drivers the tolls? End of the day, it is still Americans bearing the costs of the huge interest payments.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

Exactly… have you heard about the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; a local government entity. How did they build the tunnels and bridges that they own ? Through selling debt and repaying it with tolls that they charge and making a profit out of that. For example, in 2009, it’s true that they paid 0.5 billion in interest, but they collected 1.1 billion in tolls and after considering all other revenues and expenses they made a profit of 0.85 billion (see page 16 of their financial statements below).

I don’t see anybody bearing a cost here: the bottom line is a profit and that’s what matters.
http://www.panynj.gov/corporate-information/pdf/financial-statement-2009.pdf

One of the golden rules of finance is that if you can borrow (not everybody can; you need good credit history) you should borrow for capital investments. Financially, it does not make sense to wait to have all cash needed to make a capital investment (let me know if you need help to understand why, but it’s going to be a finance lecture), unless you are forced to, because your credit history does not allow you to borrow. On an individual level, if people followed your logic, most of them could never own a home until they are about to die, because only at that time they would have accumulated enough cash to buy the home.


You are conveniently assuming that the US borrows huge sums for investment purposes. I would tend to think the huge borrowings were for immediate gratification (consumption purposes) rather than investments.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

No I did not assume that; I said it over and over again; it depends on the purpose. You appear convinced on the “bad” part, that’s why I’m bringing you only arguments for the “good” part, because for the “bad” your are already convinced so I don’t have to convince you about that. So, I'm not assuming neither "good" or "bad".


The source quoted Obama as telling Americans that “We are out of money”. If the debts had been for “good purposes” don’t you think the American government would have already pounced on that before the electorate?
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

Sometimes they have said that. For example the US treasury made sometimes huge profits from borrowing to bail out banks (for example Citigroup).

That being said, the last thing I’d trust are the words of politicians. I need the facts to form an opinion, and not what somebody says. So far, I’ve not seen and you did not provide any fact how the borrowed funds are used. So I agree with you that US is borrowing a lot and also pays interest, but I can’t tell how much that is good or bad without any fact what that money is being used for.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
Ron

pre 13 godina

As a non-Serb, non-Albanian I urge everybody (Serb, Albanian, other) NOT to take part in these illegal elections.

Never accept illegal Kosovo independence. This is much more important then Kosovo itself. It is about international law. And keeping promises (1244).

Please do not take part in these elections. Thanks in advance!

Preporučujem 37 Ne preporučujem 44
Kosova-USA

pre 13 godina

Never accept illegal Kosovo independence. This is much more important then Kosovo itself. It is about international law. And keeping promises (1244).

Please do not take part in these elections. Thanks in advance!
(Ron, 21 August 2010 14:04)


"international law"
Didn't Serbia asked the very same question to ICJ, and the answer was clear.

Preporučujem 32 Ne preporučujem 33
EA

pre 13 godina

"The plan, that was never approved by the UN Security Council, and was rejected by Belgrade..."

Just a "small" correction here. The plan was not approved by Russia because Serbia said so. In fact Russia was very much involved in the Ahtisari Plan but at the very last moment said "No" because of Serbia's objection. The issue has been and it will be that there would be no agreement between Kosovo and Serbia when it comes to the Status. That was why President Ahtisari came with the Plan. I hope you get the point!

Preporučujem 23 Ne preporučujem 29
RKS

pre 13 godina

The National Norse Mythology Agency in Washington DC has declared this chat to contain a non-Albanian/Serbian troll. Be advised a troll will serve no purpose but to annoy you. PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 28
johny

pre 13 godina

They might as well hold elections in Subotica too. It will generate the same effect.
(Mike, 21 August 2010 16:26)

Why not; seeing that Serbs have a phantom Prishtina mayor; who is a Serb representing nobody. Or at least they had one until a couple of months ago. Don't know if he's still fighting windmills.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 22
lowe

pre 13 godina

""international law"
Didn't Serbia asked the very same question to ICJ, and the answer was clear.
(Kosova-USA, 21 August 2010 18:09) "

That's why the K-Serbs need not participate in this so called election. They should just declare independence from Pristina. After all, vide ICJ, they won't be going against international law with their own UDI, right?

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 20
johny

pre 13 godina

That's why the K-Serbs need not participate in this so called election. They should just declare independence from Pristina. After all, vide ICJ, they won't be going against international law with their own UDI, right?
(lowe, 21 August 2010 18:49)

You have my support for that. I don't know what's stopping them. O wait I know. Do you know? Either way if they decide to go that route then good for them. Don't expect any support from us though.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 18
pss

pre 13 godina

An even more interesting thing is that Pristina itself will have to step outside if it wants to enter the UN -- the ultimate symbol of independence to the world. Of course it will have to convince Russia (and China) -- might as well wish for the moon. And I don't buy the crap that UN membership is not important to "Kosova" -- otherwise Hyseni and Co. will not be flying there all the time.
(lowe, 22 August 2010 13:09)
Kosovo is open to travel to any of more than 70 countries and to do business. This is enough to make success.
UN membership is an important goal but the question is lack of UN membership enough to risk returning to Serbian control- without UN membership?
What you are buying is of no consequence, it is what you are selling and right now it is at too high of price.
You consider it inconceivable for Serbia to accept Kosovo's independence when the most it means to Serbia is a bruised ego, but you think the people of Kosovo would return to a life of oppression because they do not have a UN seat?

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 12
pss

pre 13 godina

Does it matter why the plan was not approved in the UN as long as it wasn't?
For as long as there is Russia the A plan will stay in the garbage bin and there is NOTHING the US can do about it.
Let't not look at why something didn't get the green light because it doesn't matter. Let's look at the fact that it didn't get a green light and never will. EA, your A plan is dead and talking about it will not resurrect it. You will never implement it for that reason so grow up and start negotiating like an adult.
(Peggy, 22 August 2010 03:04)
The interesting thing here is that Kosovo, US, UK, and EU are inside Kosovo saying they are implementing the Ahtissari Plan and Serbia and Russia are saying the A plan is dead--from the outside!

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 10
kufr

pre 13 godina

@Ian, actually not. Serbs can not participate in elections arranged by Pristina because that would give those parallel institutions legitimacy. Instead the north should arrange their own elections. They will not be recognized by Pristina for the same reasons but it doesn't matter because Pristina itself is irrelevant as long as Belgrade doesn't recognize. And that just will not happen without serious negotiations, which have yet to take place.

Preporučujem 13 Ne preporučujem 7
lowe

pre 13 godina

"You have my support for that. I don't know what's stopping them. O wait I know. Do you know? Either way if they decide to go that route then good for them. Don't expect any support from us though.
(johny, 21 August 2010 19:52) "

So glad to have your support -- although I can't figure out what you are trying to convey in the rest of your reply. But do stay of clear of Bajram Redzepi will you? He's sure to lynch you for showing your support!

Preporučujem 15 Ne preporučujem 7
Ron

pre 13 godina

Just a "small" correction here. The plan was not approved by Russia because Serbia said so. In fact Russia was very much involved in the Ahtisari Plan but at the very last moment said "No" because of Serbia's objection. The issue has been and it will be that there would be no agreement between Kosovo and Serbia when it comes to the Status. That was why President Ahtisari came with the Plan. I hope you get the point!
(EA, 21 August 2010 15:53)

EA,

Then still: Russia did not vote for this plan. Only the UN can change Kosovo's status. Hope we agree on that. So as long as one 'veto power' actually does not agree the status will not be changed.

Same goes for Abkhazia and Tibet by the way!

Yes, US will veto Abkhazia. And China will veto Tibet and Taiwan.

That's how the UN works. You may not like that (and probably we agree on some points) but we will not make an exception for Kosovo.

Make an UDI if you want but fortunately we also got rules all have to obey!

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 7
icj1

pre 13 godina

That's why the K-Serbs need not participate in this so called election. They should just declare independence from Pristina. After all, vide ICJ, they won't be going against international law with their own UDI, right?
(lowe, 21 August 2010 18:49)

Well, the ICJ did not say anything about K-Serbs' UDI. If declared, the UN GA has to ask the ICJ and then we will know the answer.

However, if you want to start discussing about its legality, the first question to ask is the following:

Is there something in the (a) general international law, or (b) special international law that prevents K-Serbs' to unilaterally declare independence from Kosovo ?

what's your opinion lowe ?

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 6
AdamNYC

pre 13 godina

@lowe

they will not have to "convince" russia and china...

wekk first they need to get through the General Assembly...and then the security council veto comes into play...not before.

the question is IF russia and china will be willing to burn up the enormous political capital by going against a majority of un members to throw out a veto on behalf of a foreign country it has no real vested interests in.

whats "wishing for the moon" is the certainty serb apologists have that they will do so. The more recognition kosovo receives the MORE likely they are... particularly china, to simply make a "principled stance" and absain from voting for the sake of political lipservice, rather than an outright veto.

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 6
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Kosovo is open to travel to any of more than 70 countries and to do business. This is enough to make success.
UN membership is an important goal but the question is lack of UN membership enough to risk returning to Serbian control- without UN membership?
What you are buying is of no consequence, it is what you are selling and right now it is at too high of price.
You consider it inconceivable for Serbia to accept Kosovo's independence when the most it means to Serbia is a bruised ego, but you think the people of Kosovo would return to a life of oppression because they do not have a UN seat?
(pss, 22 August 2010 20:35) "

Kosovo open for business? You mean open to receive foreign aid and alms from other countries -- well, if that's your idea of business "success", I would certainly beg to differ.

What I buy may be of no consequence to you, but I will bet you what the UNSC will (or won't) buy matters plenty to "Kosova". And Pristina can jolly well expect to receive NO business from the UN as far as membership is concerned. Of course, Hyseni can always come to visit. But then so can you and I. No big deal!

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 6
lowe

pre 13 godina

"they will not have to "convince" russia and china...

wekk first they need to get through the General Assembly...and then the security council veto comes into play...not before.

the question is IF russia and china will be willing to burn up the enormous political capital by going against a majority of un members to throw out a veto on behalf of a foreign country it has no real vested interests in.

whats "wishing for the moon" is the certainty serb apologists have that they will do so. The more recognition kosovo receives the MORE likely they are... particularly china, to simply make a "principled stance" and absain from voting for the sake of political lipservice, rather than an outright veto.
(AdamNYC, 23 August 2010 01:21) "

how is Pristina gonna enter the UN without convincing Russia and China in the UNSC????? A veto is a veto and takes effect the moment it is cast to block any resolution.

As for Russia and China “going against a majority of un members”, aren’t you counting your chickens before they hatch? The majority of UN members have still NOT yet officially recognized Pristina.
As for vested interests, believe me, nobody has more vested interest in Kosovo’s status than the Chinese. I’m referring to the implications for Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang of course. Nothing is more scared to Beijing than the concept of sovereignty and non-violation of territorial integrity. Your wish that they will abstain is, as I said, wishing for the moon!

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 6
Peggy

pre 13 godina

"He also expects that the implementation of the Ahtisaari plan would make more progress in the coming months"

Just a "small" correction here. The plan was not approved by Russia because Serbia said so. In fact Russia was very much involved in the Ahtisari Plan but at the very last moment said "No" because of Serbia's objection. The issue has been and it will be that there would be no agreement between Kosovo and Serbia when it comes to the Status. That was why President Ahtisari came with the Plan. I hope you get the point!
(EA, 21 August 2010 15:53)
=====================

Does it matter why the plan was not approved in the UN as long as it wasn't?
For as long as there is Russia the A plan will stay in the garbage bin and there is NOTHING the US can do about it.
Let't not look at why something didn't get the green light because it doesn't matter. Let's look at the fact that it didn't get a green light and never will. EA, your A plan is dead and talking about it will not resurrect it. You will never implement it for that reason so grow up and start negotiating like an adult.

Preporučujem 6 Ne preporučujem 5
icj1

pre 13 godina

An even more interesting thing is that Pristina itself will have to step outside if it wants to enter the UN -- the ultimate symbol of independence to the world. Of course it will have to convince Russia (and China) -- might as well wish for the moon. And I don't buy the crap that UN membership is not important to "Kosova" -- otherwise Hyseni and Co. will not be flying there all the time.
(lowe, 22 August 2010 13:09)

UN membership is important, the same way WB, IMF, EU memberships are important. But they don't have anything to do with the “ultimate symbol of independence”.

Ukraine and Belarus have been UN members since 1945 and we all know how "independent" they were from Moscow until 1991. On the other side, Switzerland only entered UN in 2002, and we all know how "not independent" Switzerland was before then.

As you can see, UN membership does not mean anything for independence purposes.

Preporučujem 4 Ne preporučujem 5
lowe

pre 13 godina

"UN membership is important, the same way WB, IMF, EU memberships are important. But they don't have anything to do with the “ultimate symbol of independence”.

Ukraine and Belarus have been UN members since 1945 and we all know how "independent" they were from Moscow until 1991. On the other side, Switzerland only entered UN in 2002, and we all know how "not independent" Switzerland was before then.

As you can see, UN membership does not mean anything for independence purposes.
(icj1, 23 August 2010 01:08)"

Why don’t you ask Pristina whether UN membership is important or not? I could have sworn the way Hyseni kept making a beeline for the UN HQ and the correspondences that Pristina sends to the UN that membership is among the top of Pristina’s wish list.
I don’t think Switzerland is an appropriate example to cite. Switzerland has a long, long history of nationhood and was recognized by practically the entire world before UN membership. Nobody disputed the Swiss as a sovereigh nation. You can’t say the same thing for “Kosova”. It has no history of existence as a nation prior to 2008 and today its claims to sovereignty is far from universally accepted.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 5
Nikola

pre 13 godina

I hope Belgrade sees whats in front of them. The people occupying most of Kosovo from Pristina are trying to reach out to Kosovo Serbs in Mitrovica and any person could tell thats insanity.

They must try to bring the remaining Serb areas in KiM under their control if Belgrade does not accept a partition. A partition of Kosovo would be a partition of Serbia so that can't be a option.

Until then.. you will have people claiming a distinct country without it being fully under "one flag".

It's quite possible that one day in the future..K.Albos may make the same mistake that Saakashvili did. Over estimating their worth to the West.

The occupiers of Kosovo know that they do not have it all figured out and by putting Kosovo in limbo and in a status quo frozen conflict, semi state..whatever..it clearly benefits Serbia.

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 4
miles

pre 13 godina

The non albanians of the north should hold an alternative protest election on the same day.

All those that see Kosovo as a part of Serbia can register their vote in some theatrical way in the alternative election. In this way they reject the land grab election but at the same time the world will see the overwhelming majority reject the elections in a media friendly way.

Otherwise the election will happpen, there might be some disturbances and the beliefs of the non albanians will be lost in the yank spin of a rebellious north.

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 4
lowe

pre 13 godina

"The interesting thing here is that Kosovo, US, UK, and EU are inside Kosovo saying they are implementing the Ahtissari Plan and Serbia and Russia are saying the A plan is dead--from the outside!
(pss, 22 August 2010 11:21)"

An even more interesting thing is that Pristina itself will have to step outside if it wants to enter the UN -- the ultimate symbol of independence to the world. Of course it will have to convince Russia (and China) -- might as well wish for the moon. And I don't buy the crap that UN membership is not important to "Kosova" -- otherwise Hyseni and Co. will not be flying there all the time.

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 4
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Is there something in the (a) general international law, or (b) special international law that prevents K-Serbs' to unilaterally declare independence from Kosovo ?

what's your opinion lowe ?
(icj1, 22 August 2010 03:29) "

I'm not a lawyer and so my opinion is that of the layman. And I don't know what is "special" international law, if there's indeed such a concept.

But what's there in international law that expressedly forbids K-Serbs (or K-Albanians or Eskimos for that matter) from declaring independence? It would appear to me that the mere declaration of UDI does not breach any international law. Especially when declaring a UDI from an entity that is not even a UN member and so whose status is unclear.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 3
icj1

pre 13 godina

Why don’t you ask Pristina whether UN membership is important or not? I could have sworn the way Hyseni kept making a beeline for the UN HQ and the correspondences that Pristina sends to the UN that membership is among the top of Pristina’s wish list.
(lowe, 23 August 2010 10:47)

I think we agree here and Hyseni agrees with us. Read my post again… I said “UN membership is important”


I don’t think Switzerland is an appropriate example to cite. Switzerland has a long, long history of nationhood and was recognized by practically the entire world before UN membership. Nobody disputed the Swiss as a sovereigh nation. You can’t say the same thing for “Kosova”. It has no history of existence as a nation prior to 2008 and today its claims to sovereignty is far from universally accepted.
(lowe, 23 August 2010 10:47)

Agreed, Kosovo’s claim to sovereignty is far from universally accepted or not accepted. But I don’t get how UN membership has anything to do with that. Assume that Kosovo is recognized by all states in the world (including Serbia) and only Russia refuses to recognize it, so Kosovo can’t become a UN member. Would that mean that Kosovo is not an independent state ?

And, I still did not see any objection on your side to my example on Ukraine and Belarus. So I take it that you’d agree with me that UN membership is not the “ultimate symbol of independence”.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
johny

pre 13 godina

But what's there in international law that expressedly forbids K-Serbs (or K-Albanians or Eskimos for that matter) from declaring independence? It would appear to me that the mere declaration of UDI does not breach any international law. Especially when declaring a UDI from an entity that is not even a UN member and so whose status is unclear.
(lowe, 22 August 2010 13:06)

lowe I remember clearly some arguments we had on this issue and you had opposite opinion. I remember long copy-paste from 1244 etc etc. You've changed your tune.


Now on the UN. UN is not the urgent issue here. There are many other issues we have to deal first. As a matter of fact even Albania was vetoed out from the UN several times from a Russian veto; thanks to our best friends the Serbs and the Greeks who claimed Albania was their heartland. So you know being vetoed out doesn't mean you're not independent or you're not going to ever be independent. Norway was vetoed as well if I am not mistaken. Being vetoed out a couple of times is not really the ultimate defeat. It has been proven through history and through other UN members as well that one UN veto doesn't make you or break you. What matters is international support. Once you have that with time the veto will eventually not be used. Even if things fail miserably and we're vetoed eternally being directly tied to the EU and the US and having international support and the blessing of the West, beats what Serbia's constitution allows for any-day, any-time. There is not a single question about it. So despite the gloomy future you try to paint for us, such a gloomy-future is way brighter than anything the Serbian constitution allows for.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
johny

pre 13 godina

lowe the argument we were having was that you were adamant that the declaration per se was against 1244. You believed that 1244 prohibited such a declaration. While I maintained that it is naive for a declaration, any declaration to be illegal because anyone can declare anything they want.


"Can you honestly say that Pristina doesn’t care for UN membership? Then what is Hyseni doing at the UNHQ? To sightsee as a repeat tourist? I think not."

-- That is not what I am saying. Of course Prishtina cares about UN membership. What I am saying is that not being a member or even being vetoed out does not necessarily mean ultimate defeat and failure and that because of that we should beg to be part of Serbia again. So that is why I mentioned Albania. It took several trials and a lot of time not to be vetoed, but they eventually became members. Others have gone through the same process. So this is a process and not an instantaneous event. So as a process this is different for different cases. The circumstances for each case are different. That results in faster, slower or no membership, based on the circumstances. So while UN membership is desirable, it certainly is not what makes you or what breaks you. One can exist as independent without UN membership. One can eventually become a member even after being vetoed. One can even not be recognized as a state by many and not be a member and still be better off than reintegrating. Examples of these exist all over the world. Considering Serbia's constitution even under the most extreme case when only a few Western countries support us, that is still being better off than reintegrating into Serbia. There are no incentives whatsoever that would make reintegration such a desirable thing. None. As a matter of fact the more time passes the more reasons we find why reintegration is such a wrong scenario for our future.

"But desiring UN membership is one thing, gaining membership is a different thing – my other point simply was that “Kosova” in any case has no hope of UN entry anytime soon because of Russia and China. And many countries (INCLUDING China) do see your UDI as a formidable threat to their own ethnic problems."

-- Yes that is correct. I believe I have addressed that above. Again UN membership does not constitute the end of it all, or the beginning of it all. It is highly desirable but not necessarily what will make or break our existence or our future away from Serbia. Also the circumstances existing now may not be the same as in the future. Nobody can predict what happens in the future. Claiming that Kosova will be vetoed eternally is short sighted.

"I’m not trying to “paint” a false gloomy future for “Kosova”. Objectively from the news reports (including from pro-Pristina sources) you guys do appear to be headed for that gloomy future!"

--In case you did not get it before. No matter how gloomy that future you or anyone paints is, it is way shinier compared to what the Serb constitution specifies. It is that simple. We have weighed the options and come to the conclusion. We don't need to go back to the 90's again to make up our minds again. We do not need to pay that price again to make up our minds again. Simple.



--As for the comment you made about perceptions. I agree with that. Your side can have your perceptions we can have ours. Your perceptions are not necessarily the reality for everyone out there, just like ours are not necessarily the reality for everyone out there. However we are ok with that as long as our perceptions constitutes the reality for ourselves and our supporters, while your side isn't. That is the difference. We have learned to live with it hence we don't beg you to sit with us; you haven't. You will be made to learn to live with it. Modus-vivendi is not being thrown out there for no reason.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

What other compelling reasons could there be, in your opinion, for joining the UN if not for the sake of getting affirmation of statehood? I am sure socialising wasn’t at the top of the agenda for any new applicant.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

Wooow… 192 countries that need to maintain the affirmation of their statehood !!! That’s scary… According to Lowe’s logic, Vatican is the only country in the world which does not need affirmation of its statehood. But that’s understandable; it has divine affirmation… ha, ha, ha…


Only independent states can join the UN. Of course in the case of Ukraine and Byelorussia, the West was compelled to treat them as independent states for purpose of admission whatever their own opinions.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

So, you are saying “only” actually means “only except Ukraine and Belarus” ?


As for the WB and IMF, the voting is not based on one-member-one-vote. So is the majority that you stated based on number of members or their voting allocation? In any case, the voting is not as democratic as say, the UN General Assembly.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

I did not say the number of votes, which was easy for Kosovo to win since almost all developed countries have recognized it. I said the majority of countries. For WB, out of 106 countries which submitted the ballot, 96 voted for Kosovo and 10 against. For IMF, out of 103 countries which submitted the vote, 96 voted for Kosovo (including 13 new countries which did not vote for WB), and 7 against. So, in total, between WB and IMF, 109 countries supported Kosovo (96+13).


In my opinion, you are passing judgement as an outsider on Ukraine’s status. If an insider (the Ukraine government of that time) felt then that they were independent or at least in a union of equals with Moscow, who’s to say then that you are definitely right or they are wrong?
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

Of course you are right. If they thought otherwise, they would have easily joined the 20+ millions that Stalin sent back to the creator.


Is it not possible that insiders have access to information unavailable to the guessing outsiders? Isn’t it possible that Kiev considered themselves, as a constituent part of the USSR, to have entrusted the right to make treaties with China or other countries to the USSR government? If the Ukrainians did perceive things that way, on what basis then can outsiders then can claim to know better? As for Stalin himself, he was reviled but he had many admirers too. Is it farfetched to expect that some of these admirers who shared his socialist ideals came from within the old Ukrainian government itself? My basic point is that outsiders have to make a really strong case if they claim to know more about Ukraine than the Ukranians themselves – certainly you need much more than just a dismissive “ha ha ha”.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

I don’t pretend to know what the government of Ukraine believed; it was irrelevant for Stalin. The thing I know is that they were not independent. No amount of UN membership could change that. You sound like you’re coming from Mars and are seeing for the first time Stalin’s name.


“If Pristina were offered a UN membership with the condition that it should be under Serbia (the same as the Ukraine and Belarus’ memberships under USSR), they would run as far as they can from New York. “

Pristina would. My point however was that Ukraine and Belarus (Byelorussia) didn’t.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

Because Stalin needed them there to vote as he wanted. He didn’t care what they wanted.


Even come 1991, both countries didn’t renounce their UN seats to reapply as a matter of principle to make a point that they were unhappy with the USSR. Nor to my knowledge did they expressed regret or dissatisfaction with the way they gained UN membership after World War 2.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

I did not say they were unhappy with USSR or the way they gained UN membership. I’m not in their minds. I said they were not independent from 1945 to 1991.


Then we are right back to the starting point. As already established, you don’t need UN membership to be independent. Half of the reality is that Pristina wants UN membership. The other half however is that it cannot hope to get that membership anytime soon.
(lowe, 25 August 2010 12:14)

Fully agree with all three points

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

Ok, I just wanted you to clarify the voting system that you referred to. Another question – do the charters (I think that’s the legal term used) of both these financial institutions require members to be independent states? If they do not, then really the comparison with UN entry is inappropriate.
(lowe, 27 August 2010 14:57)

For WB and IMF is called “Articles of Agreement”, but let’s call it charter for a shorter name.

So, no, none of the charters, be that WB, IMF or UN require members to be independent. They just require them to be a country.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

Is the concept of independence subjective or even irrelevant for entitites that claim to be countries then? Seems so to me from your explanation.
(lowe, 30 August 2010 01:50)

Of course it is subjective. The amount of independence is a continuum and there is no official definition where in this continuum you should be to be considered independent. Take Albania for example. Some may think it is not an independent country, because it partially depends on EU financial support. Is that thinking correct or not ? I don’t know.

On the other hand, it is relevant for entities to claim that they are countries because that gives them certain rights and privileges, like membership in the WB or IMF from where they can get loans. If they are not considered countries, than they need to have somebody else to get loans for them.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

Interests nevertheless still has to be paid right? And the interest payments will continue to baloon and baloon and baloon. [link]/
(lowe, 10 September 2010 10:00)

Of course, you always have to pay interest regardless where you borrow from (IMF or Capital markets). In addition, I'm not even sure the US would qualify for IMF loans. US is borrowing in the capital markets at historically low rates. Why should they go somewhere else ?!

They should actually issue more long term bonds to further benefit from these very low rates, so they can borrow less in the future when the rates may be higher.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

Partial picture or not, the $375 billion of interest payments for federal debts could have been used to pay for educational and other expenses incurred at the federal level. Or be used for investments or other economically productive purposes. There is no running away from the opportunity costs foregone incurred by having to make these interest payments.
(lowe, 19 September 2010 10:12)

The point was to convince the readers that your “fact” that US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education was false and misleading. As for the opportunity cost part, see the numerical example below.


How do you know the debt was not used for current expenditure (now past expenditure)?
(lowe, 19 September 2010 10:12)

I didn’t say that. I just explained that the debt being bad or not depends on its purpose. But I did not say what the purpose was as I don’t have the data. If you have it, let’s discuss it.


And the huge interest payments continue regardless of the purpose of the debt.
(lowe, 19 September 2010 10:12)

And that would be fine if the funds obtained from that debt are generating a return higher than the interest payments. You can’t say “regardless” for the purpose of debt. If you want a simple numerical example: The US government borrows $1,000 at 2% interest rate (that’s an interest expense of $20/year). Now, the US Government lends that $1,000 to Russia at an interest rate of 3% (and Russia is happy with that because due to its lower credit rating it can only obtain debt at 4% in the capital markets). So the US government will receive $30/year in interest payments from Russia. On a net basis the US government is making a profit of $10/year from that $1,000 of debt. So, why shouldn’t the US government do it ?

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

Did I talk about the sun or soccer? I was talking about the US’s huge debts and its resulting huge interest payments. Debts and interest payments are related in the way that the sun and soccer aren't and so your logic is, to me, illogical.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

It was an analogy… let me know if you need help to understand when something is an analogy. I had to use it so that you could see in a more simple way what your logic meant.

As for the numbers, they showed that the $375 billion spent on repayment could have been used for other things, including education. You can say more than 3 times -- say it 3 million times if you like – but ithis still won’t change the fact that having to repay $375 billion is no small change by any standard. At the end of the day, the debts are still America’s to bear – whether it is federal level or state level or municipal level, they are still America’s interest payments.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

I did not dispute the “$375 billion spent on repayment…. etc..”. I disputed your “fact” that “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. That is false. The “$375 billion etc…” supports a statement about “US federal” not “US”.


So the US government borrows huge amounts from others, including foreigners, to build that tunnel? Because it can’t afford to build one because it doesn’t have the ready cash? And then covers itself by charges US drivers the tolls? End of the day, it is still Americans bearing the costs of the huge interest payments.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

Exactly… have you heard about the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; a local government entity. How did they build the tunnels and bridges that they own ? Through selling debt and repaying it with tolls that they charge and making a profit out of that. For example, in 2009, it’s true that they paid 0.5 billion in interest, but they collected 1.1 billion in tolls and after considering all other revenues and expenses they made a profit of 0.85 billion (see page 16 of their financial statements below).

I don’t see anybody bearing a cost here: the bottom line is a profit and that’s what matters.
http://www.panynj.gov/corporate-information/pdf/financial-statement-2009.pdf

One of the golden rules of finance is that if you can borrow (not everybody can; you need good credit history) you should borrow for capital investments. Financially, it does not make sense to wait to have all cash needed to make a capital investment (let me know if you need help to understand why, but it’s going to be a finance lecture), unless you are forced to, because your credit history does not allow you to borrow. On an individual level, if people followed your logic, most of them could never own a home until they are about to die, because only at that time they would have accumulated enough cash to buy the home.


You are conveniently assuming that the US borrows huge sums for investment purposes. I would tend to think the huge borrowings were for immediate gratification (consumption purposes) rather than investments.
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

No I did not assume that; I said it over and over again; it depends on the purpose. You appear convinced on the “bad” part, that’s why I’m bringing you only arguments for the “good” part, because for the “bad” your are already convinced so I don’t have to convince you about that. So, I'm not assuming neither "good" or "bad".


The source quoted Obama as telling Americans that “We are out of money”. If the debts had been for “good purposes” don’t you think the American government would have already pounced on that before the electorate?
(lowe, 1 October 2010 14:08)

Sometimes they have said that. For example the US treasury made sometimes huge profits from borrowing to bail out banks (for example Citigroup).

That being said, the last thing I’d trust are the words of politicians. I need the facts to form an opinion, and not what somebody says. So far, I’ve not seen and you did not provide any fact how the borrowed funds are used. So I agree with you that US is borrowing a lot and also pays interest, but I can’t tell how much that is good or bad without any fact what that money is being used for.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 13 godina

Then let me clarify once and for all. UN membership is not a compulsory condition for independence.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

Good that we established this because I was a little bit perplexed by the UN membership being the “ultimate symbol of independence”.


That said however, it cannot be denied that most newly independent countries do desire UN membership and in fact make a beeline to apply for that UN membership. I think they did so because they perceive that being accepted into the UN represents the ultimate symbol of the world’s acceptance of your independent status.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

That’s your perception. I have not heard anybody speaking in the names of those countries and saying that they want to be accepted in the UN in order to have their independence accepted. Many states, actually the majority, believed Kosovo was a country when called to vote for its admission to the WB and IMF. They did not wait for the UN.


Byelorussia and Ukraine did have UN membership – you seemed to view that they were colonies of Moscow. I think this is the common perception by the West. I am not familiar with the histories of these countries but isn’t it just possible that the then governments in these 2 countries saw themselves as being inside the USSR of their own free will? The West had to accept their membership as a compromise to Moscow’s demands for all republics inside the USSR to have UN membership. Constitutionally the USSR is a union of republics.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

Ha, ha, ha…. “free will” !!!. I’m not disputing what they were or were not constitutionally; constitution was no more than a piece of paper for Stalin. My point is how independent was the Ukraine government in 1950 to take a decision to, say, stipulate a treaty with China. If they even thought about that, some hundreds of people would have ended up with a bullet in their head and some other thousands would have been sent for some long “vacation” in Siberia.


In terms of symbols however, Byelorussia and Ukraine were accepted as independent nations by the UN with voting rights and all. And I think I am right to say that, whatever opinion you or I hold about what UN membership means, Pristina DOES indeed desire this membership for itself.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

If Pristina were offered a UN membership with the condition that it should be under Serbia (the same as the Ukraine and Belarus’ memberships under USSR), they would run as far as they can from New York.


As for your other hypothetical scenario (unlikely to materialize in my opinion) where Russia alone refuses to allow Kosovo entry into UN – that would deprive Kosovo of a powerful symbol of statehood won’t it? They will then be as miffed as the Taiwanese since they do desire UN membership. I am talking perception (that symbols convey) not legalities here of course.
(lowe, 24 August 2010 13:24)

Lowe, I’m not discussing about legalities either; I’m discussing about the reality. All your discussion is about symbolic independence or independence on paper. I don’t think Pristina wants that. They want the real independence.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 13 godina

Well, the source I quoted mentioned $375 billion for interest payments and $50 billion for education. The numbers seem pretty clear cut to me.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:54)

Dude, it’s the third time, I think, I’m saying it. These numbers are correct, but they don’t support your argument. You can’t say the fact that the sun rises in the east (which is obviously correct) proves that Manchester United is the best European soccer team.

To use your “fact” from above to support your statement, you should correct your statement to say the “US federal expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. Saying “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education” is false and your numbers above refer to “US federal” not “US”.

Alternatively, you can keep your statement, but change the "fact" and find another source that supports your statement.


Is the US really in any position to lend money to anyone? I don’t have the data but I wouldn’t be surprised if most of their debts actually went into financing wasteful activities like their military bases overseas, misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, expensive social security programs for the pampered American electorate used to the good life, etc rather than on wealth generating activities that you seemed so confident about.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:54)

Slow there… it was a hypothetical example that even an untrained mind in finance can easily understand, to prove that debt can be good. Of course that is not a real life example, I never claimed that, but the US does give a lot of money to other countries.

If you want to go into real finance, a real life example would be that the US sells 30 Year Treasury Bonds at 4% for $1,000,000,000 and uses the sale proceeds to build a tunnel linking NJ to Manhattan, then from the tolls that it charges to the cars using the tunnel it gets an ROI of 5%, thus making a profit. To determine what the tolls should be to make that 5% return in 10 years, we need to run a discounted cash flow analysis to determine the NPV and the IRR; let me know if you need help with that.

Good or bad, they still incur interests which has to be paid, right? And paid again and again as long as the debts remain outstanding. And they will, given their humongous amount, remain outstanding for a long, long time, unless Washington chooses to default.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:54)

I proved with math that you can get a profit from debt; if something gets you a profit, you do it. Of course you have to pay something; you can’t have a return without investing (you can’t have a free lunch) – the point is whether your return is higher than the money invested. The banks worldwide make huge profits by borrowing (they take your deposits at, say, 1%, and lend them at 6%). Math is an exact science. We can continue to argue here as long as you want, but that will not change the fact that 6% is larger than 1% and you can make a profit by borrowing.


If these debts are entirely for “good” purposes, then why the outcry from Americans themselves? I believe the source that I quoted to be American.
(lowe, 26 September 2010 08:54)

I did not say the debt is entirely for good purposes. I said that that before giving a judgment on whether the debt is good or bad, we need to consider the purpose. Did your source indicate what the debt is being used for? Tell us that and then we can say whether the debt is good or bad.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
Mitrovica

pre 13 godina

So useless ... what do they expect ? 2% turnout to claim victory ? it is so pathetic ... what cannot they leave these Serbs alone and focus on developing their Albanian blackhole !!!

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“lowe I remember clearly some arguments we had on this issue and you had opposite opinion. I remember long copy-paste from 1244 etc etc. You've changed your tune.


Now on the UN. UN is not the urgent issue here. There are many other issues we have to deal first. As a matter of fact even Albania was vetoed out from the UN several times from a Russian veto; thanks to our best friends the Serbs and the Greeks who claimed Albania was their heartland. So you know being vetoed out doesn't mean you're not independent or you're not going to ever be independent. Norway was vetoed as well if I am not mistaken. Being vetoed out a couple of times is not really the ultimate defeat. It has been proven through history and through other UN members as well that one UN veto doesn't make you or break you. What matters is international support. Once you have that with time the veto will eventually not be used. Even if things fail miserably and we're vetoed eternally being directly tied to the EU and the US and having international support and the blessing of the West, beats what Serbia's constitution allows for any-day, any-time. There is not a single question about it. So despite the gloomy future you try lowe I remember clearly some arguments we had on this issue and you had opposite opinion. I remember long copy-paste from 1244 etc etc. You've changed your tune.


Now on the UN. UN is not the urgent issue here. There are many other issues we have to deal first. As a matter of fact even Albania was vetoed out from the UN several times from a Russian veto; thanks to our best friends the Serbs and the Greeks who claimed Albania was their heartland. So you know being vetoed out doesn't mean you're not independent or you're not going to ever be independent. Norway was vetoed as well if I am not mistaken. Being vetoed out a couple of times is not really the ultimate defeat. It has been proven through history and through other UN members as well that one UN veto doesn't make you or break you. What matters is international support. Once you have that with time the veto will eventually not be used. Even if things fail miserably and we're vetoed eternally being directly tied to the EU and the US and having international support and the blessing of the West, beats what Serbia's constitution allows for any-day, any-time. There is not a single question about it. So despite the gloomy future you try to paint for us, such a gloomy-future is way brighter than anything the Serbian constitution allows for.
(johny, 24 August 2010 08:21)”

What opposite view did I hold previously? Perhaps you could clearly enlighten me instead of going round in riddles.

I never said that UN membership was compulsory for independence. But on the other hand, however, most countries do quickly apply for UN membership once they gained independence – because these new countries obviously did associate UN membership as a symbol of the international community’s confirmation of their independent status. Look at Montenegro for example. Can you honestly say that Pristina doesn’t care for UN membership? Then what is Hyseni doing at the UNHQ? To sightsee as a repeat tourist? I think not. But desiring UN membership is one thing, gaining membership is a different thing – my other point simply was that “Kosova” in any case has no hope of UN entry anytime soon because of Russia and China. And many countries (INCLUDING China) do see your UDI as a formidable threat to their own ethnic problems.

I’m not trying to “paint” a false gloomy future for “Kosova”. Objectively from the news reports (including from pro-Pristina sources) you guys do appear to be headed for that gloomy future! See for example http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?lng=en&id=114977

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“Agreed, Kosovo’s claim to sovereignty is far from universally accepted or not accepted. But I don’t get how UN membership has anything to do with that. Assume that Kosovo is recognized by all states in the world (including Serbia) and only Russia refuses to recognize it, so Kosovo can’t become a UN member. Would that mean that Kosovo is not an independent state ?

And, I still did not see any objection on your side to my example on Ukraine and Belarus. So I take it that you’d agree with me that UN membership is not the “ultimate symbol of independence”.
(icj1, 24 August 2010 05:31)”

Then let me clarify once and for all. UN membership is not a compulsory condition for independence. That said however, it cannot be denied that most newly independent countries do desire UN membership and in fact make a beeline to apply for that UN membership. I think they did so because they perceive that being accepted into the UN represents the ultimate symbol of the world’s acceptance of your independent status. Look at the ex-Yugoslav republics Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia and Montenegro for example. In this sense, it is not enough for a new country just to have its flag, constitution, diplomatic relations, army – they also want UN membership. Achieving that membership however depends on the big boys in the UNSC.

Byelorussia and Ukraine did have UN membership – you seemed to view that they were colonies of Moscow. I think this is the common perception by the West. I am not familiar with the histories of these countries but isn’t it just possible that the then governments in these 2 countries saw themselves as being inside the USSR of their own free will? The West had to accept their membership as a compromise to Moscow’s demands for all republics inside the USSR to have UN membership. Constitutionally the USSR is a union of republics.

What I am trying to say is that it is all a matter of perception. What the West (and you) perceive need not be what others perceive. In terms of symbols however, Byelorussia and Ukraine were accepted as independent nations by the UN with voting rights and all. And I think I am right to say that, whatever opinion you or I hold about what UN membership means, Pristina DOES indeed desire this membership for itself.

As for your other hypothetical scenario (unlikely to materialize in my opinion) where Russia alone refuses to allow Kosovo entry into UN – that would deprive Kosovo of a powerful symbol of statehood won’t it? They will then be as miffed as the Taiwanese since they do desire UN membership. I am talking perception (that symbols convey) not legalities here of course.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

johny,

Yes, I had initially thought that the UDI went against 1244. But the ICJ has since ruled that this declaration itself does not violate 1244. So the mere declaration of independence does not violate international law – which means North Kosovo and Strpce, for example, will not be violating international law if they were to do their own UDIs too. The ICJ however did not rule whether Kosovo is a state or not.

Whatever Serbia, Pristina and their respectaive supporters perceive and feel about the UDI, the UN and statehood issues, there is no denying that UN entry for Kosovo remains a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

icj1,

“That’s your perception. I have not heard anybody speaking in the names of those countries and saying that they want to be accepted in the UN in order to have their independence accepted. Many states, actually the majority, believed Kosovo was a country when called to vote for its admission to the WB and IMF. They did not wait for the UN.”

What other compelling reasons could there be, in your opinion, for joining the UN if not for the sake of getting affirmation of statehood? I am sure socialising wasn’t at the top of the agenda for any new applicant. Only independent states can join the UN. Of course in the case of Ukraine and Byelorussia, the West was compelled to treat them as independent states for purpose of admission whatever their own opinions.

As for the WB and IMF, the voting is not based on one-member-one-vote. So is the majority that you stated based on number of members or their voting allocation? In any case, the voting is not as democratic as say, the UN General Assembly.

“Ha, ha, ha…. “free will” !!!. I’m not disputing what they were or were not constitutionally; constitution was no more than a piece of paper for Stalin. My point is how independent was the Ukraine government in 1950 to take a decision to, say, stipulate a treaty with China. If they even thought about that, some hundreds of people would have ended up with a bullet in their head and some other thousands would have been sent for some long “vacation” in Siberia. “

In my opinion, you are passing judgement as an outsider on Ukraine’s status. If an insider (the Ukraine government of that time) felt then that they were independent or at least in a union of equals with Moscow, who’s to say then that you are definitely right or they are wrong? Is it not possible that insiders have access to information unavailable to the guessing outsiders? Isn’t it possible that Kiev considered themselves, as a constituent part of the USSR, to have entrusted the right to make treaties with China or other countries to the USSR government? If the Ukrainians did perceive things that way, on what basis then can outsiders then can claim to know better? As for Stalin himself, he was reviled but he had many admirers too. Is it farfetched to expect that some of these admirers who shared his socialist ideals came from within the old Ukrainian government itself? My basic point is that outsiders have to make a really strong case if they claim to know more about Ukraine than the Ukranians themselves – certainly you need much more than just a dismissive “ha ha ha”.


“If Pristina were offered a UN membership with the condition that it should be under Serbia (the same as the Ukraine and Belarus’ memberships under USSR), they would run as far as they can from New York. “

Pristina would. My point however was that Ukraine and Belarus (Byelorussia) didn’t. Even come 1991, both countries didn’t renounce their UN seats to reapply as a matter of principle to make a point that they were unhappy with the USSR. Nor to my knowledge did they expressed regret or dissatisfaction with the way they gained UN membership after World War 2.


“Lowe, I’m not discussing about legalities either; I’m discussing about the reality. All your discussion is about symbolic independence or independence on paper. I don’t think Pristina wants that. They want the real independence.
(icj1, 25 August 2010 08:09)”

Then we are right back to the starting point. As already established, you don’t need UN membership to be independent. Half of the reality is that Pristina wants UN membership. The other half however is that it cannot hope to get that membership anytime soon.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

(icj1, 27 August 2010 05:35)

“Wooow… 192 countries that need to maintain the affirmation of their statehood !!! That’s scary… According to Lowe’s logic, Vatican is the only country in the world which does not need affirmation of its statehood. But that’s understandable; it has divine affirmation… ha, ha, ha… “

You are evading the question that I posed you with another contrived question of your own. I wanted to know what other compelling reasons you may have to suggest why new states apply for UN membership other than to affirm their independent status. You have chosen to make light sport of it. I could only therefore conclude that you don’t have any alternative good reason to offer.

As for the Vatican's divinity, I am sure their God would not be going "ha ha ha" anytime soon over the amount of sex abuse cases coming out of the Catholic churches according to news reports in recent times!


"So, you are saying “only” actually means “only except Ukraine and Belarus” ?"

I didn’t say that. Since only independent states can join the UN, it means the West had officially accepted Ukraine and Belarus as independent back then. I do not profess to know enough about Soviet history to know whether they were really independent or not. And you likewise should not summarily conclude that they were not in the absence of much more compelling evidence to support your position.


“I did not say the number of votes, which was easy for Kosovo to win since almost all developed countries have recognized it. I said the majority of countries. For WB, out of 106 countries which submitted the ballot, 96 voted for Kosovo and 10 against. For IMF, out of 103 countries which submitted the vote, 96 voted for Kosovo (including 13 new countries which did not vote for WB), and 7 against. So, in total, between WB and IMF, 109 countries supported Kosovo (96+13).”

Ok, I just wanted you to clarify the voting system that you referred to. Another question – do the charters (I think that’s the legal term used) of both these financial institutions require members to be independent states? If they do not, then really the comparison with UN entry is inappropriate.


“Of course you are right. If they thought otherwise, they would have easily joined the 20+ millions that Stalin sent back to the creator. “

Where did you get your “20* million” figure from? From Western sources? How objective are they?


“I don’t pretend to know what the government of Ukraine believed; it was irrelevant for Stalin. The thing I know is that they were not independent. No amount of UN membership could change that. You sound like you’re coming from Mars and are seeing for the first time Stalin’s name”

Since you admit not knowing what the Ukrainians believed, you should not be dismissing them as Stalin’s servants. They could well have voluntarily delegated their rights to the Soviet government to act on their behalf. And if they did so, Stalin’s frightfulness (to you) becomes irrelevant. You claimed “to know that they are not independent”. Again, where did you get your info from? Western sources again? Your sources may hail from earth but even Martians would question their objectivity.


“Because Stalin needed them there to vote as he wanted. He didn’t care what they wanted”

Again a sweeping but unsubstantiated statement from you. How do you know that he was not defending their claims to UN membership as independent states in the face of Western opposition?


“I did not say they were unhappy with USSR or the way they gained UN membership. I’m not in their minds. I said they were not independent from 1945 to 1991. “

That’s your view. But if they had felt themselves to be independent, I would tend to take their point of view rather than yours. As I already stated in my earlier post, I am unaware of the present governments of Ukraine and Belarus having expressed any reservations or anger at the way they were admitted to the UN back then.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"So, no, none of the charters, be that WB, IMF or UN require members to be independent. They just require them to be a country.
(icj1, 28 August 2010 18:29) "

I would have thought a country should be officially independent too.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

"So, no, none of the charters, be that WB, IMF or UN require members to be independent. They just require them to be a country.
(icj1, 28 August 2010 18:29) "

I would have thought a country should be officially independent too.
(lowe, 29 August 2010 06:25)

There are countries which are independent and others which are not. There is no such a thing as "officially independent". There does not exist an entity which issues certificates of independence to make the independence "official". That's a matter of reality, not paperwork.

In any case, none of the charters (UN, WB or IMF) requires the countries to be independent. All three just require them to be countries. And that's understandable, otherwise they would have to determine what independence means every time they have to admit a new member or expel an existing one.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"There are countries which are independent and others which are not. There is no such a thing as "officially independent". There does not exist an entity which issues certificates of independence to make the independence "official". That's a matter of reality, not paperwork.

In any case, none of the charters (UN, WB or IMF) requires the countries to be independent. All three just require them to be countries. And that's understandable, otherwise they would have to determine what independence means every time they have to admit a new member or expel an existing one.
(icj1, 29 August 2010 18:01) "

Is the concept of independence subjective or even irrelevant for entitites that claim to be countries then? Seems so to me from your explanation.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"On the other hand, it is relevant for entities to claim that they are countries because that gives them certain rights and privileges, like membership in the WB or IMF from where they can get loans. If they are not considered countries, than they need to have somebody else to get loans for them.
(icj1, 4 September 2010 15:53) "

You are wrong about IMF requiring members to be countries. Hongkong is an IMF member but it is not a country. In fact nobody sees Hongkong as a country, not even the Hongkongers themselves.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

You are wrong about IMF requiring members to be countries. Hongkong is an IMF member but it is not a country. In fact nobody sees Hongkong as a country, not even the Hongkongers themselves.
(lowe, 6 September 2010 11:30)

According to IMF, Hong Kong is not a member, unless they forgot to include it in the list:

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"According to IMF, Hong Kong is not a member, unless they forgot to include it in the list:

[link]
(icj1, 7 September 2010 06:21)"

"On the other hand, it is relevant for entities to claim that they are countries because that gives them certain rights and privileges, like membership in the WB or IMF from where they can get loans. If they are not considered countries, than they need to have somebody else to get loans for them.
(icj1, 4 September 2010 15:53) "

Yes, you are right about HK not being an IMF member.

And if IMF membership's main draw was to borrow funds from it, one wonders why the USA with the most humongous debt in the entire world did not see fit to tap on this IMF resource. Pride perhaps?

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

And if IMF membership's main draw was to borrow funds from it, one wonders why the USA with the most humongous debt in the entire world did not see fit to tap on this IMF resource. Pride perhaps?
(lowe, 8 September 2010 14:03)

Why should it do it when its issuing debt and borrowing in the capital markets at very low interest rates ?!!!

IMF and WB are for those who don't have easy/cheap access to capital markets to borrow because of their creditworthiness.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Why should it do it when its issuing debt and borrowing in the capital markets at very low interest rates ?!!!

IMF and WB are for those who don't have easy/cheap access to capital markets to borrow because of their creditworthiness.
(icj1, 10 September 2010 04:40) "

Interests nevertheless still has to be paid right? And the interest payments will continue to baloon and baloon and baloon. http://www.federalbudget.com/

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"Of course, you always have to pay interest regardless where you borrow from (IMF or Capital markets). In addition, I'm not even sure the US would qualify for IMF loans. US is borrowing in the capital markets at historically low rates. Why should they go somewhere else ?!

They should actually issue more long term bonds to further benefit from these very low rates, so they can borrow less in the future when the rates may be higher.
(icj1, 10 September 2010 14:10) "

Even at these low interest rates, the interest payments, according to the source in the link I provided earlier, amounted to $375 billion, far exceeding what the US spends on, say education. And if interest rates were to go up in the future, well, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Even at these low interest rates, the interest payments, according to the source in the link I provided earlier, amounted to $375 billion, far exceeding what the US spends on, say education.
(lowe, 10 September 2010 15:06)

Education is mostly a matter of state and local governments in the US, so saying that $375 billion is far exceeding US spending on education is wrong as you forgot to include state and local governments. Be more careful with the “facts” you post in these forums.


And if interest rates were to go up in the future, well, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
(lowe, 10 September 2010 15:06)

That’s why I said that the US government needs to issue now more long term bonds. In any case the point was that US does not need (or even may not be able) to borrow from the IMF.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“Education is mostly a matter of state and local governments in the US, so saying that $375 billion is far exceeding US spending on education is wrong as you forgot to include state and local governments. Be more careful with the “facts” you post in these forums.
(icj1, 11 September 2010 05:09)”

Nevertheless the fact remains that the US (whichever the level of government) has to pay far, far more to its creditors in interests for humongous debts than on essentials like education.

At the end of the day, the various parts all sum up to just one US economy.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

Nevertheless the fact remains that the US (whichever the level of government) has to pay far, far more to its creditors in interests for humongous debts than on essentials like education.
(lowe, 11 September 2010 09:53)

I'm not sure if you don't get it or don't want to get it. I said before that the fact you mention above is wrong. What all levels of US government pay in interest is much smaller than the education expenditure of all levels of US government. See for example below:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2009_US.html

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

"I'm not sure if you don't get it or don't want to get it. I said before that the fact you mention above is wrong. What all levels of US government pay in interest is much smaller than the education expenditure of all levels of US government. See for example below:

[link]
(icj1, 12 September 2010 17:39) "

According to my link, the US Treasury Dept spent $375 billion on interest payments compared, which is huge compared with the $53 billion for education.

The issue here that I believe the source to be addressing was that these humongous interest payments represented an opportunity cost lost for the US economy. Because this money could have instead been used to pay for other things, including over 7 times the expenditure for education (education as defined by the source). Or if that $375 billion had hypothetically been given to Nasa, it could have paid for almost 20 times of the latter's expenditure. Its all about opportunity costs incurred by these interest payments.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 13 godina

According to my link, the US Treasury Dept spent $375 billion on interest payments compared, which is huge compared with the $53 billion for education.
(lowe, 13 September 2010 07:48)

And that's correct, but it's the partial picture. You said, “US (whichever the level of government) has to pay far, far more to its creditors in interests for humongous debts than on essentials like education.”

The US Treasury department deals only with the Federal level outlays. The State and Local governments have their own treasuries. So, the fact you brought, about the “whichever the level of government“ is still false.

And I explained it before; the interest on the Federal level debt is 100% the responsibility of the US Treasury. The Education expenditure is for most part the responsibility of the State and Local governments (in the US, at least, not sure about Serbia). So you have to take all levels of government into account when you do the comparison. You can’t tell somebody why you don’t do something, when that thing is (mainly) somebody’s else job.


The issue here that I believe the source to be addressing was that these humongous interest payments represented an opportunity cost lost for the US economy. Because this money could have instead been used to pay for other things, including over 7 times the expenditure for education (education as defined by the source). Or if that $375 billion had hypothetically been given to Nasa, it could have paid for almost 20 times of the latter's expenditure. Its all about opportunity costs incurred by these interest payments.
(lowe, 13 September 2010 07:48)

The fact of taking debt is not bad on itself. That depends on what the debt is used for. If it’s used for investments (for example infrastructure), than the interest cost is offset by the future returns on that investment (on a more personal level, you buy a house by taking a loan from the bank – you pay interest, but you also rent the house thus generating rental income, and may have a profit out of that). If the debt is used for current expenditure, that’s not desirable.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“And that's correct, but it's the partial picture. You said, “US (whichever the level of government) has to pay far, far more to its creditors in interests for humongous debts than on essentials like education.”

The US Treasury department deals only with the Federal level outlays. The State and Local governments have their own treasuries. So, the fact you brought, about the “whichever the level of government“ is still false.

And I explained it before; the interest on the Federal level debt is 100% the responsibility of the US Treasury. The Education expenditure is for most part the responsibility of the State and Local governments (in the US, at least, not sure about Serbia). So you have to take all levels of government into account when you do the comparison. You can’t tell somebody why you don’t do something, when that thing is (mainly) somebody’s else job. “

Partial picture or not, the $375 billion of interest payments for federal debts could have been used to pay for educational and other expenses incurred at the federal level. Or be used for investments or other economically productive purposes.There is no running away from the opportunity costs foregone incurred by having to make these interest payments.


“The fact of taking debt is not bad on itself. That depends on what the debt is used for. If it’s used for investments (for example infrastructure), than the interest cost is offset by the future returns on that investment (on a more personal level, you buy a house by taking a loan from the bank – you pay interest, but you also rent the house thus generating rental income, and may have a profit out of that). If the debt is used for current expenditure, that’s not desirable.
(icj1, 18 September 2010 03:52)”

How do you know the debt was not used for current expenditure (now past expenditure)? And the huge interest payments continue regardless of the purpose of the debt.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“The point was to convince the readers that your “fact” that US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education was false and misleading. As for the opportunity cost part, see the numerical example below. “

Well, the source I quoted mentioned $375 billion for interest payments and $50 billion for education. The numbers seem pretty clear cut to me.


“I didn’t say that. I just explained that the debt being bad or not depends on its purpose. But I did not say what the purpose was as I don’t have the data. If you have it, let’s discuss it.”

Good or bad, they still incur interests which has to be paid, right? And paid again and again as long as the debts remain outstanding. And they will, given their humongous amount, remain outstanding for a long, long time, unless Washington chooses to default. If these debts are entirely for “good” purposes, then why the outcry from Americans themselves? I believe the source that I quoted to be American.


“And that would be fine if the funds obtained from that debt are generating a return higher than the interest payments. You can’t say “regardless” for the purpose of debt. If you want a simple numerical example: The US government borrows $1,000 at 2% interest rate (that’s an interest expense of $20/year). Now, the US Government lends that $1,000 to Russia at an interest rate of 3% (and Russia is happy with that because due to its lower credit rating it can only obtain debt at 4% in the capital markets). So the US government will receive $30/year in interest payments from Russia. On a net basis the US government is making a profit of $10/year from that $1,000 of debt. So, why shouldn’t the US government do it ?
(icj1, 25 September 2010 19:49)”

Is the US really in any position to lend money to anyone? I don’t have the data but I wouldn’t be surprised if most of their debts actually went into financing wasteful activities like their military bases overseas, misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, expensive social security programs for the pampered American electorate used to the good life, etc rather than on wealth generating activities that you seemed so confident about.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“Dude, it’s the third time, I think, I’m saying it. These numbers are correct, but they don’t support your argument. You can’t say the fact that the sun rises in the east (which is obviously correct) proves that Manchester United is the best European soccer team.

To use your “fact” from above to support your statement, you should correct your statement to say the “US federal expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. Saying “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education” is false and your numbers above refer to “US federal” not “US”.

Alternatively, you can keep your statement, but change the "fact" and find another source that supports your statement.”

Did I talk about the sun or soccer? I was talking about the US’s huge debts and its resulting huge interest payments. Debts and interest payments are related in the way that the sun and soccer aren't and so your logic is, to me, illogical.

As for the numbers, they showed that the $375 billion spent on repayment could have been used for other things, including education. You can say more than 3 times -- say it 3 million times if you like – but ithis still won’t change the fact that having to repay $375 billion is no small change by any standard. At the end of the day, the debts are still America’s to bear – whether it is federal level or state level or municipal level, they are still America’s interest payments.


“Slow there… it was a hypothetical example that even an untrained mind in finance can easily understand, to prove that debt can be good. Of course that is not a real life example, I never claimed that, but the US does give a lot of money to other countries.

If you want to go into real finance, a real life example would be that the US sells 30 Year Treasury Bonds at 4% for $1,000,000,000 and uses the sale proceeds to build a tunnel linking NJ to Manhattan, then from the tolls that it charges to the cars using the tunnel it gets an ROI of 5%, thus making a profit. To determine what the tolls should be to make that 5% return in 10 years, we need to run a discounted cash flow analysis to determine the NPV and the IRR; let me know if you need help with that.”

So the US government borrows huge amounts from others, including foreigners, to build that tunnel? Because it can’t afford to build one because it doesn’t have the ready cash? And then covers itself by charges US drivers the tolls? End of the day, it is still Americans bearing the costs of the huge interest payments.


“I proved with math that you can get a profit from debt; if something gets you a profit, you do it. Of course you have to pay something; you can’t have a return without investing (you can’t have a free lunch) – the point is whether your return is higher than the money invested. The banks worldwide make huge profits by borrowing (they take your deposits at, say, 1%, and lend them at 6%). Math is an exact science. We can continue to argue here as long as you want, but that will not change the fact that 6% is larger than 1% and you can make a profit by borrowing. “

You are conveniently assuming that the US borrows huge sums for investment purposes. I would tend to think the huge borrowings were for immediate gratification (consumption purposes) rather than investments.


“I did not say the debt is entirely for good purposes. I said that that before giving a judgment on whether the debt is good or bad, we need to consider the purpose. Did your source indicate what the debt is being used for? Tell us that and then we can say whether the debt is good or bad.
(icj1, 1 October 2010 04:30)”

The source quoted Obama as telling Americans that “We are out of money”. If the debts had been for “good purposes” don’t you think the American government would have already pounced on that before the electorate?

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“It was an analogy… let me know if you need help to understand when something is an analogy. I had to use it so that you could see in a more simple way what your logic meant.”

Your analogy has to make sense. Debts and interest payments are definitely linked. But the sun and Manchester United are linked only in your own dreams.



“I did not dispute the “$375 billion spent on repayment…. etc..”. I disputed your “fact” that “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. That is false. The “$375 billion etc…” supports a statement about “US federal” not “US””

Federal or non-federal, that debt is still Americans’ to repay with huge interests – no running away from this unless they elect to default. The burden is still Americans’.

And the $375 billion is still much larger than the $50 billion spent on the education that was cited by the source. There’s no running away from the numbers.

“Exactly… have you heard about the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; a local government entity. How did they build the tunnels and bridges that they own ? Through selling debt and repaying it with tolls that they charge and making a profit out of that. For example, in 2009, it’s true that they paid 0.5 billion in interest, but they collected 1.1 billion in tolls and after considering all other revenues and expenses they made a profit of 0.85 billion (see page 16 of their financial statements below).

I don’t see anybody bearing a cost here: the bottom line is a profit and that’s what matters.
[link]

One of the golden rules of finance is that if you can borrow (not everybody can; you need good credit history) you should borrow for capital investments. Financially, it does not make sense to wait to have all cash needed to make a capital investment (let me know if you need help to understand why, but it’s going to be a finance lecture), unless you are forced to, because your credit history does not allow you to borrow. On an individual level, if people followed your logic, most of them could never own a home until they are about to die, because only at that time they would have accumulated enough cash to buy the home.”

So the New Jersey government made a profit out of their debts which I supposed has been fully repaid in a relatively short time. But I was talking about America’s multi-trillion dollar debts the principal of which remained unrepaid to date and appears to show signs of growing even further. It is not exactly the same as the New Jersey scenario where borrowings was repaid and led to a profit in a short time.

As for your take on home ownership through mortgage – wasn’t this precisely the major course for the US’s recent financial problems and housing market debacle? The likes of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mae extending absurd, unsustainable mortgages to Americans who later couldn’t financially support the repayments and had to have their properties repossessed. Which was widespread enough to cause the property collapse. Of course, I don’t have the numerical evidence – but this was a report that I saw on CNN and the news media was full of such coverage at that time.

“No I did not assume that; I said it over and over again; it depends on the purpose. You appear convinced on the “bad” part, that’s why I’m bringing you only arguments for the “good” part, because for the “bad” your are already convinced so I don’t have to convince you about that. So, I'm not assuming neither "good" or "bad". “

The bad part appears more plausible to me as I am not aware of Americans themselves publicly waxing praises about their nation’s debts today. Are you?


“Sometimes they have said that. For example the US treasury made sometimes huge profits from borrowing to bail out banks (for example Citigroup).

That being said, the last thing I’d trust are the words of politicians. I need the facts to form an opinion, and not what somebody says. So far, I’ve not seen and you did not provide any fact how the borrowed funds are used. So I agree with you that US is borrowing a lot and also pays interest, but I can’t tell how much that is good or bad without any fact what that money is being used for.
(icj1, 16 October 2010 03:18)”
I don’t think the US would dare to show its people how the funds are really being used – my hunch would be that a lot of it was possibly used to finance wasteful activities like the futile military adventures in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- and still remains to be repaid (with interests of course) without reaping of profits or dividends.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 13 godina

“It was an analogy… let me know if you need help to understand when something is an analogy. I had to use it so that you could see in a more simple way what your logic meant.”

Your analogy has to make sense. Debts and interest payments are definitely linked. But the sun and Manchester United are linked only in your own dreams.


“I did not dispute the “$375 billion spent on repayment…. etc..”. I disputed your “fact” that “US expenditure on interest on debt is much larger than the expenditure on education”. That is false. The “$375 billion etc…” supports a statement about “US federal” not “US””

Federal or non-federal, that debt is still Americans’ to repay with huge interests – no running away from this unless they elect to default. The burden is still Americans’.

And the $375 billion is still much larger than the $50 billion spent on the education that was cited by the source. There’s no running away from the numbers.



“Exactly… have you heard about the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; a local government entity. How did they build the tunnels and bridges that they own ? Through selling debt and repaying it with tolls that they charge and making a profit out of that. For example, in 2009, it’s true that they paid 0.5 billion in interest, but they collected 1.1 billion in tolls and after considering all other revenues and expenses they made a profit of 0.85 billion (see page 16 of their financial statements below).

I don’t see anybody bearing a cost here: the bottom line is a profit and that’s what matters.
[link]

One of the golden rules of finance is that if you can borrow (not everybody can; you need good credit history) you should borrow for capital investments. Financially, it does not make sense to wait to have all cash needed to make a capital investment (let me know if you need help to understand why, but it’s going to be a finance lecture), unless you are forced to, because your credit history does not allow you to borrow. On an individual level, if people followed your logic, most of them could never own a home until they are about to die, because only at that time they would have accumulated enough cash to buy the home.”

So the New Jersey government made a profit out of their debts which I supposed has been fully repaid in a relatively short time. But I was talking about America’s multi-trillion dollar debts the principal of which remaining unrepaid to date and appears to show signs of growing even further. Its not exactly the same as the New Jersey scenario where borrowings was repaid and led to a profit in a short time.

As for your take on home ownership through mortgage – wasn’t this precisely the major course for the US’s recent financial problems and housing market debacle? The likes of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mae extending absurd, unsustainable mortgages to Americans who later couldn’t financially support the repayments and had to have their properties repossessed. Which was widespread enough to cause the property collapse. Of course, I don’t have the numerical evidence – but this was a report that I saw on CNN and the news media was full of such coverage at that time.

“No I did not assume that; I said it over and over again; it depends on the purpose. You appear convinced on the “bad” part, that’s why I’m bringing you only arguments for the “good” part, because for the “bad” your are already convinced so I don’t have to convince you about that. So, I'm not assuming neither "good" or "bad". “

The bad part appears more plausible to me as I am not aware of Americans themselves waxing praises about their nation’s debts today. Are you?


“Sometimes they have said that. For example the US treasury made sometimes huge profits from borrowing to bail out banks (for example Citigroup).

That being said, the last thing I’d trust are the words of politicians. I need the facts to form an opinion, and not what somebody says. So far, I’ve not seen and you did not provide any fact how the borrowed funds are used. So I agree with you that US is borrowing a lot and also pays interest, but I can’t tell how much that is good or bad without any fact what that money is being used for.
(icj1, 16 October 2010 03:18)”

I don’t think the US would dare to show its people how the funds are really being used – my hunch would be that a lot of it was possibly used to finance wasteful activities like the futile military adventures in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- and still remains to be repaid (with interests of course) without reaping profits or dividends.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0