Valtionvelka, jota ei voida periä kansalaisilta, vaan niiltä, jotka velkasopimuksen solmivat.

"Kunniattoman velan" (odious debt) käsitteeseen näyttäisivät sopivat harhaanjohtajiemme ottamat valtionvelat.

Sama pätee Suomen ohella myös muihin finanssiaseella ryöstettyihin valtioihin.

Kansainvälisiltä pankeilta otetut valtion velat eivät hyödytä tai auta suomalaisia mitenkään. Päin vastoin.
Velat ylittävät suomalaisten maksukyvyn sikäli, että veronmaksajat joutuvat alentamaan terveydenhoitoaan, asumistasoaan, ravitsemustaan jne. varsin suuresti, jotta kykenisivät maksamaan edes osan veloista.
 Otetut valtionvelat ovat kansalaisten maksukykyyn nähden niin suuret, että velanhoito ylittää normaalin bisneskäytännön (the normal course of business).

Maksajat putoavat keskiluokasta köyhyyteen. Ja, köyhät tätäkin heikompaan asemaan. Lisäksi velanhoito velkojapankeille edellyttää raskaita elinoloihin kohdistuvia suoneniskuja kansantaloudelle, on myytävä ulkomaiseen omistukseen välttämättömät elämisen ehdot kuten asuminen, liikkuminen ja energia sekä muu niinsanottu kansallisvarallisuus.

Kansantalouden varantojen ja toimintaedellytysten myynti tapahtuu velkojapankkien ja ostajien ehdoilla, pilkkahinnasta, jotta saataisiin ruokaa ja selviydyttäisiin edes osasta lainanhoitomenoja. 

Velanantajapankit sekä velkasopimusta Suomen edustajina laatineet viranhaltijat tiesivät lainapapereita rustatessaan, edellämainitut tosiseikat.

Sen vuoksi nämä velat eivät sido ikivanhan lain mukaan (voimassa mm. USA:ssa, jossa monet lainoittajapankit "asuvat") kansakunnan asukkaita.
Velat sitovat vain velan ottajia henkilökohtaisesti. 

Odious debt

Wikipedia:

In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion.

Origin

The doctrine was formalized in a 1927 treatise by Alexander Nahum Sack, a Russian émigré legal theorist,^{[citation needed]} based upon 19th century precedents including Mexico's repudiation of debts incurred by Emperor Maximilian's regime, and the denial by the United States of Cuban liability for debts incurred by the Spanish colonial regime.
According to Sack:

When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders' knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.^[1]

Modern impacts

Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International (an environmental and public policy advocacy organisation in Canada), and author of Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World's Environmental Legacy, has stated that:

by giving creditors an incentive to lend only for purposes that are transparent and of public benefit, future tyrants will lose their ability to finance their armies, and thus the war on terror and the cause of world peace will be better served.

In a Policy Analysis for the Cato Institute, Patricia Adams suggested that the debts incurred by the Iraqi state during the rule of Saddam Hussein are odious as the money borrowed was spent on weapons, instruments of repression and palaces.^[2]
A recent article by economists Seema Jayachandran and Michael Kremer has renewed interest in this topic. They propose that the idea can be used to create a new type of economic sanction to block further borrowing by dictators.^[3] Jayachandran proposed her new recommendations recently at the 10th anniversary of the Jubilee movement held at the Center for Global Development in Washington, D.C.



Professori Michael Hudson kirjoittaa:

The Financial Road to Serfdom

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25250

...." At issue is language regarding the legal rights of creditors vis-à-vis debtors.

The United States has long had a body of law regarding this issue.
A few years ago, for instance, the real estate speculator Sam Zell bought the Chicago Tribune in a debt-leveraged buyout.
The newspaper soon went broke, wiping out the employees’ stock ownership plan (ESOP).
They sued under the fraudulent conveyance law, which says that
if a creditor makes a loan without knowing how the debtor can pay in the normal course of business, the loan is assumed to have been made with the intent of foreclosing on property, and is deemed fraudulent.
            This law dates from colonial times, when British speculators eyed rich New York farmland.
Their ploy was to extend loans to farmers, and then call in the loans when the farmer’s ability to pay was low, before the crop was harvested.

This was indeed a liquidity problem – which financial opportunists turned into an asset grab.
Some lenders, to be sure, created a genuine insolvency problem by making loans beyond the ability of the farmers to pay, and then would foreclose on their land.
The colonies nullified such loans.
Fraudulent conveyance laws have been kept on the books since the United States won its independence from Britain.

So the question now being raised is whether the nation should be deemed “solvent” if the only way to carry its public debt (that is, roll it over by replacing bad old loans with newer and more inexorable obligations) is to forfeit its land and basic infrastructure.
This would fundamentally alter the relationship between public and private sectors, replacing its mixed economy with a centrally planned one – planned by financial predators with little care that the economy is polarizing between rich and poor, creditors and debtors."...
Creditors today are using debt leverage to force Greece to sell off its public domain – having extended credit beyond its ability to pay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ja tänään 21.6.2011 toisaalla...
http://www.uusisuomi.fi/raha/113327-viime-hetken-kikka-euroopan-tukirahastoon-%E2%80%9Dhyva-kreikalle%E2%80%9D

12:46 Hilda K. kirjoittaa:
Homma on niin perusteellisen rikollinen, että uloskävelyn ...

.... pitäisi onnistua ihan vain ilmoitusasiana.
Kunhan vaan Suomi saa nopeasti nykyhallituksen nurin ja rikolliset edusmiehensä valtakunnanoikeuden kautta kärsimään rangaistuksia.


Ensinnäkin, EVM on yksityinen firma, joka ei kuulu mitenkään EU:hun.
Ei Suomen valtion ministereillä ole oikeuksia tehdä valtiosopimusluontoista, maan ja kansalaisten hyvinvointiin oleellisesti heikentävästi vaikuttavaa pysyvää diiliä tämmöisen (tai minkään muunkaan) instanssin kanssa ilman kansanäänestystä.


Kunniaton lainananto insolventille eli vararikossa olevalle on laitonta. Tällaista lainaa ei tarvitse maksaa, jos asia viedään kansainväliseen oikeuteen.
Näin on ennenkin historiassa tehty.


Nyt eletään jotain käsittämätöntä oikeusfarssia.
EKP, EU ja IMF vahvemman oikeudella teeskentelevät, että niiden rahoittaman/lainoittamat valtiot kärsivät tilapäisestä käteisen puutteesta, vaikka ne ovat vararikossa, jossa käteisen kaataminen kaivoon ei enää auta.


Troikan teeskentely on tarkoin harkittua. Se on rikollisen luotonantajan toiminnan periaate.
On vanha kikka kaapata isokin omaisuus luotottamalla uhria.
Luotonantaja vain pyytää fyffet korkoineen takaisin hetkellä, jolloin tietää velallisen olevan hetkellisesti maksukyvytön.
Tämä joutuu luovuttamaan omaisuutensa lainanantajalle, joka oli sen juuri niin suunnitellutkin.


"Asset grab" on rikos koko sivistyneessä maailmassa.


http://hildakoo.blogspot.com/2011/06/valtionvelka-jota-ei-voi-peria.html