5 ms·

Misleading. The debts in question could have been paid off years ago if anyone had wanted to, but they were at such low rates of interest that it was better to

Misleading. The debts in question could have been paid off years ago if anyone had wanted to, but they were at such low rates of interest that it was better to pay off more recent debts instead.

mtmail 12y ago
True. In 1990 Germany had €125 million debt outstanding. Easy to pay off if they wanted. Instead a new contract was signed with 20 annual installments.
- brazzy 12y ago
  And note that those 125 million were only outstanding because their payment had been frozen while the country was divided. Someone made a HUGE profit on what were fore decades essentially super-junk bonds.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
jaekwon 12y ago
How is that misleading? That's typically how one fails to pay their debts -- by priority.
- loupeabody 12y ago
  I suppose there's a suggestion that due to some horrible infrastructure or mismanagement they've been left unpaid. As in, the nature of national debts and the these countries deal with debt is irresponsible or unfair or impractical or all three at once. Or that the scale of the war can be appraised form its cost to society, just as a matter of perspective. The reality it seems, is much more mundane, as you point out. That suggestion though, is what maybe the piece is suggesting by its headline. That kind of controversial commentary is why I'd clicked on it to begin with, but if I'd known that it was just being literal about the topic, it wouldn't be nearly as appealing. Still, it's kind of crazy that these old debts are still lingering around. Just in a broader, historical sense.
  - firebombzero 12y ago
    Your last sentence is what made me click, so there's that. Didn't load for me though.
joosters 12y ago
It's hardly misleading. The article itself explains why these bonds were paid off now and not earlier.
- cperciva 12y ago
  I should have said that the headline was misleading. I agree, the article itself is fine.

Misleading. The debts in question could have been paid off years ago if anyone had wanted to, but they were at such low rates of interest that it was better to pay off more recent debts instead.

mtmail 12y ago

True. In 1990 Germany had €125 million debt outstanding. Easy to pay off if they wanted. Instead a new contract was signed with 20 annual installments.

brazzy 12y ago
And note that those 125 million were only outstanding because their payment had been frozen while the country was divided. Someone made a HUGE profit on what were fore decades essentially super-junk bonds.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

jaekwon 12y ago

How is that misleading? That's typically how one fails to pay their debts -- by priority.

loupeabody 12y ago
I suppose there's a suggestion that due to some horrible infrastructure or mismanagement they've been left unpaid. As in, the nature of national debts and the these countries deal with debt is irresponsible or unfair or impractical or all three at once. Or that the scale of the war can be appraised form its cost to society, just as a matter of perspective. The reality it seems, is much more mundane, as you point out. That suggestion though, is what maybe the piece is suggesting by its headline. That kind of controversial commentary is why I'd clicked on it to begin with, but if I'd known that it was just being literal about the topic, it wouldn't be nearly as appealing. Still, it's kind of crazy that these old debts are still lingering around. Just in a broader, historical sense.
- firebombzero 12y ago
  Your last sentence is what made me click, so there's that. Didn't load for me though.

joosters 12y ago

It's hardly misleading. The article itself explains why these bonds were paid off now and not earlier.

cperciva 12y ago
I should have said that the headline was misleading. I agree, the article itself is fine.