The relationship between a creditor and a debtor has existed for centuries. The idea in which someone should borrow money to make more money is one that has fueled this relationship, and was a principle that can be linked to the economic collapse in the late 2000s. Moral confusion however is created during times of economic disaster, as to who to protect, the creditors or the debtors. A quote used throughout the article is that “debts have to be paid”, but under what circumstances? Should austerity be imposed on a country just because their dictator made a selfish economic decision and now the rest of the country has to suffer?
These types of questions are created when rough economic times arise. Should it be an obligation for debt to be paid? In my opinion after reading this article it depends on the situation. There should be laws that protect both the lender and the borrower. A lender should be able to receive his original sum, however the borrower should not be exploited to a point in which their lives can be ruined just because a debt is not paid. Dictators in the early 1980s, and 90s, borrowed money from the imf and were forced to pay it back. However after pocketing the money and investing it in banks, these dictators forced their citizens to have to work and receive less benefits from their country just to pay back these corrupt loans.
This led to many people dying in countries in Africa just because medical funding was cut due to these corrupt loans that dictators make. In ancient texts, lenders were always looked upon as evil individuals and if you think about it things really have not changed. These current lenders were the ones that created the whole economic crisis, and should be looked at the same way in my opinion.