DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**LottiFurmann** · 07-07-2012, 09:05 PM

Different countries have different laws and constitutions. PAP has amended the Constitution to be so, so be it. But apparently, they are not following it.

Contrary to what MAS has claimed, loan to IMF could be much more riskier than loaning to a country or company. This is basically because IMF cannot print money, neither does it have any huge assets or production capabilities to back up its borrowing. Some claim that IMF member countries will back up these loans... that is not true at all. If in any circumstances that IMF cannot retrieve its loans to its clients and unable to pay its debtors, no other countries would be willing to lend IMF money again... because those richer countries are most likely to be its creditors and it would be silly for them to lend IMF to pay themselves back.

IMF is basically an empty shell, unlike a country which has land as its assets as well as its production capabilities. Would you make loans to any companies that is only an empty shell without any production capacity?

It would mean that if you have pledged to make loans to IMF, you must be prepared to write off the debts as well.

Goh Meng Seng

Ahem, can you ask George Osborne and the other finance ministers of the other countries why they never seeked parliamentary approval from their parliaments (some have more than 1 house) before pledging more than Singapore's contribution?

07-07-2012, 09:05 PM	#10
LottiFurmann Join Date Jan 2008 Posts 4,494 Senior Member	Different countries have different laws and constitutions. PAP has amended the Constitution to be so, so be it. But apparently, they are not following it. Contrary to what MAS has claimed, loan to IMF could be much more riskier than loaning to a country or company. This is basically because IMF cannot print money, neither does it have any huge assets or production capabilities to back up its borrowing. Some claim that IMF member countries will back up these loans... that is not true at all. If in any circumstances that IMF cannot retrieve its loans to its clients and unable to pay its debtors, no other countries would be willing to lend IMF money again... because those richer countries are most likely to be its creditors and it would be silly for them to lend IMF to pay themselves back. IMF is basically an empty shell, unlike a country which has land as its assets as well as its production capabilities. Would you make loans to any companies that is only an empty shell without any production capacity? It would mean that if you have pledged to make loans to IMF, you must be prepared to write off the debts as well. Goh Meng Seng Ahem, can you ask George Osborne and the other finance ministers of the other countries why they never seeked parliamentary approval from their parliaments (some have more than 1 house) before pledging more than Singapore's contribution?
	Quote