Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
I have added a redlink to the "See also" section of the Big Ben article. ... which I've deleted because MOS:NOTSEEALSO says "The "See also" section should not include red links". (But feel free to put it back after someone creates an article.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The LAX building was designed in 1959 by Pereira & Luckman, while Kolkata was by Vector Designs made public in 2015. I doubt an architect getting such huge contracts in the 50s is alive/working today (though I can't confirm it). Revival is common in art, though I doubt a mass Space-Age-Pop-Art revival movement is incoming. "Why is everyone wearing those [sci-fi-style] rings?" "Because nobody wears them anymore -- rings are stupid!" [3] -- my apologies. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what's the rationale behind keeping GDP and other measurements as a sole indicator to identify creditworthiness for countries to avail external loan? Is there any justice to applying this principle on developing or least developed nations seeking funds because obviously their GDP's and other socio-economic indicators would be below global average? On what basis do world banks or other foreign financiers fund them on? Grotesquetruth (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The common term is sovereign credit rating. It takes a number of factors into account, not simply GDP, in order to determine the risk to investors of lending to that particular country. Factors include the country's level of indebtedness, credit history (e.g. has there ever been a default or other failures to reimburse previous loans) and political risk. See here for example: [4]Xuxl (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in that case, will anyone take the risk of financing a least developed nation knowing full well that the sovereign credit ratings seem to not be in favour of the financing investor? Grotesquetruth (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why interest rates are based in part on credit ratings, to offset risk. If you couldn't do that, nobody would ever buy riskier bonds. So nations who struggle paying debt can't leverage as much, but at least they can leverage some. Also, a credit rating isn't law -- it's just a guideline that investors and lenders use - that's why multiple agencies give different credit ratings. Also some governments simply deserve to have their credit ratings lowered, like when Sri Lanka or Greece decide to reject the IMF's assistance in a debt crisis and choose to default instead. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to question the notion – or the source that gave it to you – that GDP … or anything else ... is the “sole indicator to identify creditworthiness for countries to avail external loan[s].” First, no lender is going to rely solely on one criterion; second, “GDP” is pretty vague. Do you mean the level, the growth rate, the likely trend over the period of the loan, or some other usage? Finally, “justice” is not a term many lenders would use in determining whether or not a client is likely to pay back the loan. More useful would be knowing the track record for the country (does it tend to pay its loans in full and on time?), the current and projected economic and political stability of the borrower, and the reason for borrowing (investment in foreign currency generating activities would be more attractive than spending on consumption to ensure the ruling party wins the next election). As for the later question, there are indeed lenders willing to take a risk on sub-par borrowers, for the right fee (interest rate). That would, of course, be “in favour of the financing investor,” as are ALL loans both public and private. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
