A Time for Jubilee (by Elizabeth Palmberg)
The subprime mortgage crisis in the U.S. has raised just outrage at the behavior of predatory lenders. It's wrong to push a mortgage which the lender knows the borrower won't be able to pay back, driving homeowners into foreclosure and bankruptcy.
But when poor nations have unpayable debt—often the result of Cold War favors to corrupt dictators—they can't declare bankruptcy. They have to just keep paying, even if all they can pay is the interest, never touching the principal. Even if it means ignoring desperate needs at home for education, antipoverty strategies, or fighting the AIDS pandemic. And even if, as is all too often the case, the creditors—wealthy nations or institutions like the IMF—impose harmful economic policies on debtor countries, as described last year in the Sojourners article "A Sabbath from Suffering."
The global Jubilee movement, which pushes for the cancellation of unpayable debts owed by poor countries and the re-dedication of that money to things like education and health care, has won some significant victories in the past decade, but much remains to be done. That's why it's so important that, this upcoming week, the House of Representatives is likely to vote on the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation (HR 2634). Read about it at www.jubileeusa.org.
One important part of the Jubilee Act is that it mandates an accounting of "odious debt"—loans taken out by dictators, and which the lender knew would go to corruption or would otherwise not help a country's people. Noreena Hertz's book The Debt Threat quotes one internal U.S. memo, written as the Cold War superpower was sending massive loans to its military ally, brutal dictator Mobutu Sese Seko: "the [corruption] in Zaire with all its wicked manifestations is so serious that there is no (repeat no) prospect for Zaire's creditors to get their money back." The Jubilee Act is a chance to start setting the record straight on cases like this. Millions of the world's poorest people are waiting.
Elizabeth Palmberg is an assistant editor of Sojourners.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Get ready for a swarm of attacks from the worshippers of the free market who think Jesus taught "every man for himself and the devil take the hindermost". They will blather endlessly about personal reponsibility (for the poor only) and how important it is to not have government rescue people (unless they are very rich).
Posted by: Don Gisselbeck | April 4, 2008 5:46 PM
I'm tellin' ya, officer, this Don guy came out of nowhere, and he had a torch. I thought he was going to kill me.
Posted by: A Strawman | April 4, 2008 6:59 PM
"I'm tellin' ya, officer, this Don guy came out of nowhere, and he had a torch. I thought he was going to kill me."
don't quit yer day job
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 4, 2008 7:55 PM
"The subprime mortgage crisis in the U.S. has raised just outrage at the behavior of predatory lenders. It's wrong to push a mortgage which the lender knows the borrower won't be able to pay back, driving homeowners into foreclosure and bankruptcy." - IMO, one of the most naive statements ever written. Why would lenders not want to be repaid?
Lest we forget, it is you and I as U.S. taxpayers who have loaned this money to third world countries. If loans are never expected to be repaid, I propose we not loan out the money in the first place.
Posted by: Cads | April 4, 2008 9:26 PM
The money is lent and we can't turn time back. It was sent by rulers we elected to buy favors from dictators who also acted in their own interests, knowing they personally never intended to take care of the debts.
So, forgive the debts. The idea of free market and power through prosperity never came from Jesus. Once we're able to pay for our own needs and cover our own responsibilities, we can praise God for his blessings and give up the nerve to ask for more from people whose babies' bellies are bloated from starvation. Or orphaned by AIDS.
Being a US citizen is more often than not an "accident of birth", not entitlement to enrich ourselves as if poverty-stricken peoples either don't exist, or don't matter.
Posted by: openeyes | April 4, 2008 10:19 PM
"But when poor nations have unpayable debt—often the result of Cold War favors to corrupt dictators—they can't declare bankruptcy. They have to just keep paying, even if all they can pay is the interest, never touching the principal. Even if it means ignoring desperate needs at home for education, antipoverty strategies, or fighting the AIDS pandemic. And even if, as is all too often the case, the creditors—wealthy nations or institutions like the IMF—impose harmful economic policies on debtor countries"
Not unlike the problems that face the economic classes from the real poverty level through the so-called middle-class of our nation. On a much small scale obviously, but definetly just as burdensome.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | April 5, 2008 9:32 AM
If we cancel the debt, we cannot control the nations. If we cannot control the nations we cannot have the cheap products (TV's, video games, i-pods and so forth) we have. If we can not have the cheap products, I will not be happy even though Jesus Christ did actually die for my sins and I confess him with my lips.
Posted by: Sabertooth | April 5, 2008 10:25 AM
Oh brother,
Would anyone bother to point to any country that is being denied aid? Or any conservative politician or pundit that is opposed to debt relief?
I'm not saying that people like that aren't out there, but I'm not aware of anything blatant. Until you can point to an example of a country in need of debt relief that is being denied it, you're liable to be chasing figments of your imagination.
Or worse, you may be harassing potential allies while ignoring opponents of debt relief in your own midst. I think most conservatives are open to third-world debt relief, at least on a case-by-case basis. And don't pretend for a second that banks that have made loans to dictators don't make contributions to Democrats.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 5, 2008 12:42 PM
Debt relief for Zimbabwe after Mugabe leaves!
All in favor?
Posted by: justintime | April 5, 2008 12:54 PM
Does Sojo really want to establish jubilee across all nations? I'm guessing not, and I'm certain they have no idea how it would work, so I'm not sure why they keep evoking it.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 5, 2008 3:30 PM
Justintime I think it would be a good idea to help Zimbabwe if Mugabe stays out . My conern would be if the new government is accountable and honest . That country needs some stabilization and policies that are on the up and up . I woud think it would benefit the whole region if it got its act together .
But in regards to this Palmberg fluff piece. Its almost like she has taken to the red lettered old testament and mixed in a liberal philospy of redistribution of wealth .
This is under civics 101 , the United States is a representative republic , not ancient Israel or China . Ww have some very rich people in this country , we also have some middle and poor class citizenery . Homeless people living in my area who pay taxes from time to time .
She promotes to take these tax dollars and give them away with no strings attached .
I do not consider that Bibical . For one thing the people in Isreal who promoted this procedure all had the same faith , the forgiveness of debt came from GOd , not a politicl idealogy .
Posted by: Mick | April 5, 2008 4:27 PM
Get ready for a swarm of attacks from the worshippers of the free market who think Jesus taught "every man for himself and the devil take the hindermost". They will blather endlessly about personal reponsibility (for the poor only) and how important it is to not have government rescue people (unless they are very rich).
Posted by: Don Gisselbeck
In 1979, Time magazine hailed Wallis as one of the "50 Faces for America's Future." That same year, the journal Mission Tracks published an interview with Wallis, in which the activist evangelical expressed his hope that "more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes."
Wallis blamed America entirely for the political tensions of the Cold War era. "At each step in the Cold War," he wrote in November 1982, "the U.S. was presented with a choice between very different but equally plausible interpretations of Soviet intentions, each of which would have led to very different responses. At every turn, U.S. policy-makers have chosen to assume the very worst about their Soviet counterparts."
Posted by: Don | April 5, 2008 10:28 PM
Debt relief is one part of the Year of Jubillee passage in Leviticus. The other part involved returning agricultural land to families so that they could support themselves. Yes, it was a redistribution of wealth, but for the purpose of enabling people to be able to work to support themselves. Houses in the villages were not to be given away. There is no mention of distributing gold or other precious metals or jewels. It is specifically so people can support themselves. Most conservatives don't like redistribution of wealth, but most liberal seem to think that if the government just puts money in the hands of the nonworking poor, through welfare checks and the like, that that is will solve the problem. It seems to me that the Year of Jubille is calling for something else. Any thoughts?
Posted by: Bruce | April 5, 2008 11:27 PM
The ironic thing about this is that the United States is also a debtor nation--but mostly by choice in plenty of cases. All the money being poured into Iraq right now could have been used to balance the budget or even improve education and infrastructure for our own people (perish the thought!). This is not to say that helping Third World countries is necessarily bad, but we must get the plank out of our eye (i.e., put our own very warped affairs back in order) before we can go help out others much, both for purposes of not looking like hypocrites, upholding the loyalty to the wellbeing of the American people (not the Iraqi or African people) that the President must swear, and so we do not fall upon serious problems in the future. And I'm sorry, Sojourners, but sorting out our own financial affairs will take years.
Posted by: Brel | April 6, 2008 2:08 AM
"But you are aware the person writing about it has little respect for many people of this country who do not share her politics" Mick
Mick, could you please point to any evidence of this from what Elizabeth Palmberg has posted? Thanks.
Posted by: JamesMartin | April 6, 2008 6:45 AM
Mick,
I'm one of those people who sits in the pew every sunday, so I'm just getting back. Actually, in my case it's the choir, rather than the pew. Anyway, I don't know anything about Ms. Palmberg, so let's move beyond her points to an inquiry into what the rest of the Year of Jubillee passage means for us today. Years ago, I had kind of written it off as just so much utopian nonsense. Then I read Kevin Phillips, WEALTH AND DEMOCRACY. He makes the historical point that in several former empires, (the Spanish, the Dutch and the British) that wealth concentrated to the point that the wealthiest 1% owned 40% of the nations wealth. 40% appeared to be a threshold amount. After that those empires went into decline, often with a long protracted war draining the country of its wealth. Maybe the writers of the Year of Jubilee were on to something. What's the Godly Truth in this passage?
Posted by: Bruce | April 6, 2008 5:25 PM
"Does Sojo really want to establish jubilee across all nations? I'm guessing not, and I'm certain they have no idea how it would work, so I'm not sure why they keep evoking it."
Kevin, just what do you believe in anyway? I'm asking this question honestly, as I don't get where you're coming from. Sometimes the Bible is a hard book to read, let alone carry out in our lives. Especially for middle-class Americans.
Posted by: ando | April 6, 2008 8:29 PM
Mick,
I'm stunned by your assessment of Elizabeth's notes as hateful and whatever other derogatory term you used to describe her position.
That was as clear a case of projection as I've seen, in response to an entry asking for mercy and justice for peoples who have been abused by their governments. I have no idea how, in talking about mercy and justice, an author could so enrage a commentator.
From what kind of worldview do you come?
openeyes
Posted by: openeyes | April 6, 2008 9:14 PM
"Kevin, just what do you believe in anyway?"
I am a Christian.
"I'm asking this question honestly,"
No you aren't.
"as I don't get where you're coming from."
Really? Have you read the scriptural texts regarding Jubilee? It makes very little sense to apply them in this context. Jubilee was a call for God's followers to redistribute on a scheduled basis, not for selected parties to forgive their debts to other selected parties.
"Sometimes the Bible is a hard book to read,"
I don't think it is.
"let alone carry out in our lives."
Okay.
"Especially for middle-class Americans."
Why especially for middle-class Americans? What does that have to do with Jubilee? If Jubilee existed in this country, the middle class would stand neither to gain or to lose. Are we to impose Jubilee on other nations? I don't understand your point.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 7, 2008 1:30 AM
Though members may get a message saying a comment is being held for review, it really isn't. Our spam filter sometimes holds legitimate comments and sends out that message. We monitors go through the Junk file at least once a day looking for comments held in error and release them.
If you have a comment held that you would like released sooner, please email the community mailbox (community@staff.beliefnet.com), letting me know which blog you're commenting on, and I'll be happy to check the file sooner.
Thank you,
Beliefnet_Tiger
Community Monitor
Beliefnet.com
Posted by: Beliefnet_Tiger | April 7, 2008 2:36 AM
Kevin,
Again, to restate my earlier point, the Jubilee passage was a system to give selected families the economic means to work and support themselves. How would that play out in today's world?
Posted by: Bruce | April 7, 2008 8:58 AM
Posted by: Don | April 5, 2008 10:28 PM
I'm not the Don who posted the quote above attributing Marxist leanings to Rev. Wallis.
Don ridiculing Born Again believers and worrying about the Soujourners rules of conduct for others .
Mick, you need to stop misrepresenting what I wrote. I explained that on the post in question. Go back and re-read what I wrote in response to your complaint. If you continue accusing me of what I didn't do, then you are being both dishonest and merely engaging in personal attack.
And yes, I will continue calling you on the rules of conduct when you violate them, as you have done here, especially in your rant against Elizabeth Palmberg and James Martin.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | April 7, 2008 9:13 AM
Mick, what is your point in the long post above? JamesMartin asked what seemed like (to me anyway) a sincere question. Suddenly, you're galloping off in all sorts of directions: movies, race, liberals, responsibilities of Dads, etc.
Is everything o.k.?
Posted by: carl copas | April 7, 2008 12:33 PM
"our culture has gone more to the left , not sure the left of your culture but I believe it is ?"
Yes, Mick, politically I'm on the left, though I've not felt that the culture generally has gone more to the left. But I imagine that you and I define those terms differently.
To me, the culture is very hedonistic--that need not be left or right, it's just immoral. The culture is also ultra-individualistic, without any sense that we are our brother's keeper. I think both the political right and left share blame for that.
Anyway, take care of yourself, and watch out for bitterness, one of Satan's most dangerous tools.
Posted by: carl copas | April 7, 2008 7:32 PM
"Are we to impose Jubilee on other nations? I don't understand your point."
What's so hard to understand? If we're Christians, not subject to the whims of our American middle class lifestyles, but obedient to the will of God, we would think of others before ourselves. We would have compassion on the poor of other countries who are struggling to put food on the table. Anyone who has been to a developing nation for any period of time can see that is all too readily apparent. Debts forgiven, slaves set free. Excuse me, but what don't you understand?
Posted by: ando | April 7, 2008 8:11 PM
"What's so hard to understand?"
Whether you think we should impose jubilee on other nations. That's what I said.
"Debts forgiven, slaves set free. Excuse me, but what don't you understand?"
The part where we are asking other people to forgive debts on our behalf. How does that square with the Biblical passages regarding Jubilee? I'm now asking you a question.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 8, 2008 2:28 AM
We are the fools who thought we could control the world by paying off tyrants who subjugate and torture their own people.
We are the ones who choose to waste our wealth on bad choices when we could have spent it for doing good in the world.
Do you think for one minute that our leaders expected these tyrants to pay them back? No, we were behaving like mobsters for our own political ends. We need hold our politicians feet to the fire when they make these kind of decisions. Bad decisions like these end up costing us far more than the original bribe.
Look at what is happening in Pakistan. People are going hungry because we have armed those who control and make a profit from the countries resources. The black market thrives because we subsidize the military who are running it.
Think how different that country would be if we lent all of that money spent on the military to rural female entrepreneurs. They turn out to be a better financial risk. The Taliban would have to rethink how they do things.
We are the ones who need to rethink how to use the worlds resources more wisely so that it is truly done in our best interest and its children can grow up in a safer more humane world.
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | April 8, 2008 3:10 AM
Mick,
Thanks for writing about how it is to hear conservative Christians disparaged. I seem to be in an odd in-between position, with groups of friends and relatives who are strongly Right or Left and believe that all decent people must agree with them. And it's painful to hear how they talk about each other. I agree with my more liberal friends when they speak about the importance of restructuring a usury-based economy which takes advantage of poor individuals and nations. I agree with my more conservative friends when they talk about the importance of individual fiscal responsibility. I don't see why we can't agree that both are important issues. I think both are clearly sane concerns and also have a clear biblical basis. I don't think it helps to dismiss people who find one issue more important than the other as irresponsible heathen pinkos or ignorant greedy bible-thumping plutocrats.
What if we each looked at how our own lives contribute to the problems that concern us? I usually find plenty of material for thought, repentance and change there.
(But don't get me started about rich people, or about the college system...:)
Posted by: pelerin | April 8, 2008 9:57 AM
None of the debt that went to "poor countries" ever fell into the hands of poor people.
the beneficiaries of the IMF money went to the dictator of the country ,or the already rich and politically connected.
IMF money has always left a trail of poverty and economic dis-advantage for the working poor people. The money goes to American contractors or subsidies for American farm products; then their currency is pegged to the dollar and then they wind up poorer than before.
That's why the new leader in Ecuador (??) (not sure) rejected any "help" from the IMF.
Posted by: HERB | April 10, 2008 5:35 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?