This article examines whether or not poor countries' debts should be written off. With backers that include Bono and the pope, the campaign for poor-country debt relief has proved a powerful coalition. A decade ago, international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, denied that debts owed to them needed to be forgiven at all. Since 1996, however, a programme, inelegantly called the HIPC initiative, has tried to cut the debts of 38 heavily-indebted poor countries to "sustainable" levels. Now, ahead of the autumn meetings of the IMF and the Bank this weekend, America and Britain are touting rival plans to rub out the debts entirely. America wants simply to write off the debts of HIPC countries. George Bush's Treasury officials point out that part of the money these countries borrow from international institutions goes straight back to Washington to service existing loans. Why not simply cancel the debt and switch to grants? Although the Treasury is not promising any new money, it says that eliminating debt would be a big step forward. Britain, by contrast, is offering more cash and wants more countries to get help. On September 26th, Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, said that the goal should be debt relief of up to 100% for all poor countries, not just those that are officially deemed to be heavily in debt. Debt activists are delighted. They hope that rivalry between rich countries will bring both debt write-offs and pledges of new money. Staff at international institutions are more sceptical, particularly about the American proposal, which they argue will drastically cut their resources. Debt forgiveness, they say, means that less money will flow back to the institutions to be lent to other poor countries later. A better question, though, is whether total debt relief makes any sense.