could be disadvantage.Another example of a disadvantage is the possible bad habits a country could get into while having their debt relieved. It’s very possible for the countries in Africa to become accustomed to the United States “bailing them out” of a debt crisis if this programs continues to go on. If the country relies too much on the US, then they will never be able to run for themselves as an independent country. We can tell them to use careful financial planning and budgeting. However, there may be a disincentive to use that if they get into the habit of relying on the economically stronger country. As a Biblical example, this is just like how God bails out the Israelites when they get into trouble, yet they still continue to disobey him. The Israelites disobeyed and turned their back on God, but when they got ran out of food or water they pleaded to God to help them out. This is where there should be a fine line between how far we should forgive others who are in need.Overall, despite the possible negative effects of the HIPC Initiative, the World Bank and IMF have continued to help out those countries in need. Countries that have no possible way of paying off their debt should not be ignored. I agree with the HIPC Initiative and believe it has the potential to do a lot of good for the economy as a whole. I believe it will help not only developing nations but the developed nations as well. It also has the potential to help reduce poverty in the world as Delechat describes. Also, on a Biblical perspective, I believe it clearly states that we are to forgive the debts of our neighbors. Therefore, this is why I think the HIPC Initiative is an appropriate obligation for the IMF and World Bank to have....
