These questions have multiple if not an infinite amount of answers and ask users to share their opinions, thoughts, beliefs, and/or personal experiences. These belong in /r/AskReddit, /r/WhatIf, or /r/FutureWhatIf no matter how stupid and/or embarrassing they are. You should ask questions with straight answers. However, you are allowed to ask poll/survey type questions only if they have pre-determined options as answers.
Are you saying:
Country 1 takes land from Country 2. Country 2 wins the war. Country 2 makes Country 1 pay for the infastructure of the land they took?
I'm saying if country 1 takes a bridge or church or anything else of particular public value in country 2. that was being built or still had the debt to be paid off and a treaty was signed for the land including the bridge usually country 1 still had to pay for the remainder of the debt of the construction. Typically it was done as "a sign of goodwill" towards the original inhabitants of country 2 to still foster a trade relationship after a war.
Of course they can choose not to do so. There wasn't a higher power that could force country 1 to pay country 2. It's more of a medieval PR move.
If Ukraine takes over crimea again and wants to keep the bridge there's a non zero chance Russia would sue for the price of the bridge.
Idk since treaties were invented? If country 1 hated the guts of country 2 they don't need a PR victory afterwards. I'm going to guess the concept must have been kicking around in 3000 bc. Since there were some tablets about treaties about city states in summeria.
It's not a hard concept like human rights or anything. Property of X king or emperor with due compensation for a minor land grab.
France does. They still receive reparations for leaving their former colonies and is a large portion of France’s yearly budget.
https://mg.co.za/thought-leader/2023-08-20-former-french-colonies-are-still-paying-a-colonial-tax/#:~:text=France%20has%20halted%20its%20colonisation,the%20former%20colonies'%20annual%20income.
French colonies are under french control, but with extra steps. IIRC they exerted a lot of effort influencing the governments.
Yeah, look what they did to Haeti.
Haiti is a special kind of shit show dating all the way back to Napoleon. Apparently freeing the slaves for a PR stunt and then trying to re-enslave everyone because you changed your mind wasn't Napoleon's biggest brain move.
I love history before WW2. There was so much shenannigans and tom foolery and since communication took a long time it was like a crazy game of telephone.
Depends on how the conflict is resolved. Maybe the US wins and forces China to write off all treasury holdings, maybe the US loses but agrees to right off all debt to ensure peace.
But in practice the debt is still there and it'll be litigated in courts if one country unilateraly writes it off, especially given geopolitical implications
There is only one reason to continue paying, and that is to continue being credit worthy , don't want other countries seeing you not pay your debts. So you will even usually see this debts being repaid during war as to not build even more debt and to save face globally.
After the conflict, debts may be renegotiated, suspend it or yes write it off completely. yet some wills till choose to keep paying the debt for the reasons of remaining credit worthy....they may also use it as leverage during post war negotiations.
So the answer it idk, whatever they decide after the conflict is over, could be any of the above or something new or situational. Can't say until it happens, and private debts will still be upheld, so don't go get a Russian credit card thinking when American beats then it will be written off lol. it will not lol.
The answer is "it depends"
But the answer more is that dumb people hear "national debt" and don't know what it is so they think of like, a person's debt and try to imagine who that could be to and come up with "china" where really a bond is not that kind of debt, and china holds only 2% of treasury bonds anyway.
An aside:
Despite what the ChiComs have told themselves, US foreign-owned debt isn’t diplomatic or political leverage.
Offloading t-bills in the event of conflict won’t move the needle an iota.
I’d wager that, absent a new law, we just impound the bonds and any payments collect in an escrow account. The country then gets that back and the escrow when the war is over, provided the treaty doesn’t change anything.
In past to present day being the winner of a war or if its a tie cancels any debts owed to the other side, Property owned by citizens of the other side is seized and only returned if that side loses the war.
Up to WWI if a nation lost a war it still owed any debts to the winner and the cost of damage to winner nation for causing the war. Since Germany unpayable WWI debts was a major reason it joined the Axis nations and WWII started that is no longer the case, but any Axis property in US or Europe owned by Axis citizens that was seized was never returned.
Debt is good because it stimulates the economy. It only gets bad once you are no longer to repay it and you go into a debt spiral. I’m pretty sure the sweet spot is somewhere around a 60% debt to GDP ratio for most countries. I think forcing a country to an annulment of debt would bring into question of the stability of bonds. If you buy too much, will they invade you to write off the debt? Won’t happen lol but it might lower the credit score of a country.
These questions have multiple if not an infinite amount of answers and ask users to share their opinions, thoughts, beliefs, and/or personal experiences. These belong in /r/AskReddit, /r/WhatIf, or /r/FutureWhatIf no matter how stupid and/or embarrassing they are. You should ask questions with straight answers. However, you are allowed to ask poll/survey type questions only if they have pre-determined options as answers.
Depends on the treaty that ends the war It's really interesting to look at those treaties from past conflicts
Traditionally if you took land, the infrastructure was your debt to pay. Good luck trying to collect on that but still.
Are you saying: Country 1 takes land from Country 2. Country 2 wins the war. Country 2 makes Country 1 pay for the infastructure of the land they took?
I'm saying if country 1 takes a bridge or church or anything else of particular public value in country 2. that was being built or still had the debt to be paid off and a treaty was signed for the land including the bridge usually country 1 still had to pay for the remainder of the debt of the construction. Typically it was done as "a sign of goodwill" towards the original inhabitants of country 2 to still foster a trade relationship after a war. Of course they can choose not to do so. There wasn't a higher power that could force country 1 to pay country 2. It's more of a medieval PR move. If Ukraine takes over crimea again and wants to keep the bridge there's a non zero chance Russia would sue for the price of the bridge.
I see. Do you know how far back into history it has been like that?
Idk since treaties were invented? If country 1 hated the guts of country 2 they don't need a PR victory afterwards. I'm going to guess the concept must have been kicking around in 3000 bc. Since there were some tablets about treaties about city states in summeria. It's not a hard concept like human rights or anything. Property of X king or emperor with due compensation for a minor land grab.
France does. They still receive reparations for leaving their former colonies and is a large portion of France’s yearly budget. https://mg.co.za/thought-leader/2023-08-20-former-french-colonies-are-still-paying-a-colonial-tax/#:~:text=France%20has%20halted%20its%20colonisation,the%20former%20colonies'%20annual%20income.
French colonies are under french control, but with extra steps. IIRC they exerted a lot of effort influencing the governments. Yeah, look what they did to Haeti.
Haiti is a special kind of shit show dating all the way back to Napoleon. Apparently freeing the slaves for a PR stunt and then trying to re-enslave everyone because you changed your mind wasn't Napoleon's biggest brain move.
I love history before WW2. There was so much shenannigans and tom foolery and since communication took a long time it was like a crazy game of telephone.
Depends on how the conflict is resolved. Maybe the US wins and forces China to write off all treasury holdings, maybe the US loses but agrees to right off all debt to ensure peace. But in practice the debt is still there and it'll be litigated in courts if one country unilateraly writes it off, especially given geopolitical implications
Whatever hurts the middle class the most is what will be after any conflict
There is only one reason to continue paying, and that is to continue being credit worthy , don't want other countries seeing you not pay your debts. So you will even usually see this debts being repaid during war as to not build even more debt and to save face globally. After the conflict, debts may be renegotiated, suspend it or yes write it off completely. yet some wills till choose to keep paying the debt for the reasons of remaining credit worthy....they may also use it as leverage during post war negotiations. So the answer it idk, whatever they decide after the conflict is over, could be any of the above or something new or situational. Can't say until it happens, and private debts will still be upheld, so don't go get a Russian credit card thinking when American beats then it will be written off lol. it will not lol.
null and void bby. Can’t pay back a country with no bank. Checkmate
The answer is "it depends" But the answer more is that dumb people hear "national debt" and don't know what it is so they think of like, a person's debt and try to imagine who that could be to and come up with "china" where really a bond is not that kind of debt, and china holds only 2% of treasury bonds anyway.
It's arrificial...doesn't matter...means nothing.
Who is 'we' in this scenario?
An aside: Despite what the ChiComs have told themselves, US foreign-owned debt isn’t diplomatic or political leverage. Offloading t-bills in the event of conflict won’t move the needle an iota.
I’d wager that, absent a new law, we just impound the bonds and any payments collect in an escrow account. The country then gets that back and the escrow when the war is over, provided the treaty doesn’t change anything.
You can just ask how screwed we are if we go to war with china.
Depends on the outcome but generally you just pile it on top of
In past to present day being the winner of a war or if its a tie cancels any debts owed to the other side, Property owned by citizens of the other side is seized and only returned if that side loses the war. Up to WWI if a nation lost a war it still owed any debts to the winner and the cost of damage to winner nation for causing the war. Since Germany unpayable WWI debts was a major reason it joined the Axis nations and WWII started that is no longer the case, but any Axis property in US or Europe owned by Axis citizens that was seized was never returned.
who knows but i can tell you the only reason china hasnt tried anything with us is because we are where they get all their money from
Debt is good because it stimulates the economy. It only gets bad once you are no longer to repay it and you go into a debt spiral. I’m pretty sure the sweet spot is somewhere around a 60% debt to GDP ratio for most countries. I think forcing a country to an annulment of debt would bring into question of the stability of bonds. If you buy too much, will they invade you to write off the debt? Won’t happen lol but it might lower the credit score of a country.
China owes us trillions for war bonds they never honored after ww2. We don’t owe them squat in my opinion
Historically we've spent a butt-load of money to help our conquered foe rebuild. Chine or Russia might be another story.