Foreign aid - good or evil?

[MMI]

Extreme example is right! My response is simplistic and appropriate only to your example. But the principle holds good.

First, if we acknowledge our duties, there's no need for charity. Charity is too focused on fashionable areas of need, and ignores general needs.

Next, why does the man burn the $100? Is there a reason? He's starving hungry and on death's door.

Anyway, I still have a duty to give him the $100 in the first instance.

The recipient has an obligation also. He must put that $100 to its intended use or return it.

I think what I'm saying is, I would give my $100 to the people who can't or who don;t know how. I would not want the man who won't to have it, but I'd rather give him $100 if withholding it also deprived others who did deserve it.

[Thorne]

why does the man burn the $100? Is there a reason? He's starving hungry and on death's door.

It could be a religious thing! His god doesn't like $100 bills.

Anyway, I still have a duty to give him the $100 in the first instance.

In your mind you, and I, have a duty. In my mind we don't. If you wish to look upon it as a duty, that's fine, it's your choice. My problem is with those who would inflict that choice upon others who think differently.

The recipient has an obligation also. He must put that $100 to its intended use or return it.

So it's all right to attach strings to the $100? And how do you enforce that "obligation" on the recipient? And if he takes that $100, buys a load of bricks
and throws them through your windows, are you still obligated to give him another $100?

I think what I'm saying is, I would give my $100 to the people who can't or who don;t know how. I would not want the man who won't to have it, but I'd rather give him $100 if withholding it also deprived others who did deserve it.

Here again, I tend to agree. Helping those who can't and teaching those who don't know how is a laudable endeavor. But when your $100, given to those kinds of people, is then stolen by the person who won't help himself, and then burned, it would be foolish to continue throwing money into that hole until you could neutralize that idiot.

[MMI]

I think we are extending that scenario beyond its useful limits. Let's step back a bit.

I agree that I am putting forward my own view: I see it that every nation that can has a duty to provide aid to poorer countries.

I believe that, to be useful, the amount of aid given must be at least sufficient.

I also see it that nations have a right to expect their aid to be used as intended, and to direct it where it does the most good. (This means that if aid is misappropriated by recipient governments, then future aid can be withheld - but see below.)

I submit that nations have a duty to ensure that the poor and needy receive the aid they send, and this duty overrides the principle of national sovereignty.

Force can be used to protect such people against oppressors.

Now, the world and its politics are very complicated, and those five simple principles could easily be demonstrated to be unworkable. But only the spoilers would want to do that. Anyone who wanted to could pick them apart, by pointing to individual situations where they would be inappropriate or unworkable, or to play with the words I have used in order to give them a different effect. That's just them being disingenuous. The principles are easy to understand and are adaptable. Moreover, they are right.

For example, I have advocated the use of force in some instances. A careful calculation must be made before this happens, because, as has been rightly pointed out, an invasion might cause more harm than good. But if an invasion is out of the question, then other alternative action must be taken: covert operations to bring down the third world government, perhaps. Let's just not crash our helicopters in enemy territory before we get the job done, however!

So my position is, foreign aid is good and necessary. It does not matter who or what caused the poverty in the first place, nnor does it matter how it is explained away by tyranical leaders. It must be given, and it must be received by those who need it. It is unfortunate that the aid we currently provide is inadequate, especially as it is in our power to give more than is needed without even noticing it.

Givers of aid are not losers, but benefit from increased global wealth and trade. If there is a limit on what can be produced, we have not reached it yet.

Furthermore, the focus must be on the good that is done and the achivements that are made, not on the failures that occur. The fact that some aid programmes fail and that aid is misdirected is regrettable (and must be prevented in future) but it is a poor reason to stop giving it at all! It is a reason that is, unfortunately, cited by many however. (And on an individual level, those who give to obtain tax relief are missing the point of giving and don't understand why they get the tax break!)

[Thorne]

MMI,

I understand your arguments and respect your right to your belief regarding foreign aid. I don't agree, obviously, but I do understand.

However, you are advocating either attacking a country whose leadership is oppressing it's citizens or, barring that, forcibly removing those leaders, in violation of all international laws.

Now, I don't necessarily disagree with this idea, but you do realize that either of these options will ultimately lead to the deaths of people? Some of them innocent bystanders! Yet, elsewhere in these forums, you adamantly oppose the rights of individuals to protect themselves from criminals, just because they might cause the death of those criminals!

Please explain why it can be acceptable for a nation to kill foreign leaders or foreign nationals in the name of protecting and helping other foreign nationals, but it is not acceptable for an individual to kill criminals in the defence of his property and family? Who decides when one is right and the other is wrong? Violence is violence.

Sorry if this throws this thread completely off track.

[MMI]

Simple.

It's not wrong to defend your own life (or another person's) against attack, even if this causes the death of your attacker - and it's legitimate to use a gun or any other weapon that comes to hand in doing so.

Please note, I said "life". It would be wrong to kill an attacker if you did not fear for your own life (or for another person's), but you may still defend yourself as much as necessary to avoid hurt. I cannot imagine how a gun would be an appropriate defence weapon here.

A thief's life is not forfeit because he breaks the law, nor is a mugger's, nor even a rapist's (waits for the reaction!). But his freedom should be.

Killing national leaders who are oppressive has a recent precedent in Saddam Hussein. He was hanged supposedly for just the reason I have advanced for attacking Zimbabwe. Mugabe's death is just as desirable as Saddam's. I would not have him killed because he is a megalomanic, nor because he is a rascist, or because he is anti-British. I would have him killed because he is killing fellow Zimbaweans in order to hold onto illegitimate power, and he is presiding over the ruination of his country and his people. However, I would be satisfied if he were simply removed from power so that aid could reach the people.

Am I mistaken? Am I hippocrytical?

[Thorne]

Am I mistaken? Am I hippocrytical?

As far as taking out people like Saddam and Mugabe, no, I don't think you're mistaken. I agree with you on this issue, if not on others.

[MMI]

There's another thread somewhere about Hell freezing over!

[Thorne]

There's another thread somewhere about Hell freezing over!

As cold as it's been here in SC lately, I think hell may have done just that!

[mkemse]

Foriegn Aid up to a certain pint is ok, dependingo n the Country and what we send and get in return, but more important the people in this country (The United States) need to be taken care of before we help others

[MMI]

Mkemse: NOTHING in return is necessary. At least, not until the people living in the recipient state have risen out of poverty.

... To give, and not to count the cost,
Save that of knowing that we do Thy will.

And who in USA is starving, living in poverty, oppressed by their government, and suffering from lethal disease? Greatest need first!

To say charity begins at home is the most cynical cop-out there is.

[Thorne]

To say charity begins at home is the most cynical cop-out there is.

And to spout about one's "duty" being to give until it hurts smacks of arrogance!

Besides, some of us have lower pain thresholds.

[steelish]

To say charity begins at home is the most cynical cop-out there is.

Why? How can any one country (or individual, for that matter) be of help to anyone else unless they are in a position to help themselves?

In other words...I cannot give to charity (monetary-wise) unless I have money to give, therefore I need to ensure I am a contributing member of society lest I become one of the citizens holding out MY hand for a donation! Nor can a country help another country if they are so far into debt they cannot dig themselves out of the hole they're in. It all looks fine and glossy on the surface, but dig a little deeper and it turns into a dark pit.

[SadisticNature]

There are some huge complications here.

In some sense the US is one of the poorest nations in existence. Name any other nation with a debt anywhere close to 10.8 Trillion, and an out of control deficit?

Also in the US there are some incredibly wealthy people who are doing the right thing, look at Gates, Clinton, and various other "retired" individuals who run charitable foundations that are investing in projects to make a huge difference.

With all due respect to MMI, people have been throwing money on the problem for an entire generation, and if money were all it took to solve the problem it would be done by now. All the research in this area points to it being far more complicated than that.

At an individual level I think its a matter of individual rights and beliefs. I personally am not that well off and I sometimes give to causes I believe in, but claiming someone has a duty to throw money on a non-solution to a problem is rather extreme.

I think if you needed sizable donations from the rich for a plan to remedy global poverty you'd see a lot of success, provided the plan was going to work and could convince people it was going to work. Lots of people are jaded to Project X, Project Y or Project Z that will "save Africa" because their previous donations resulted in no real change, and those projects have largely failed spectacularly.

[MMI]

Why? How can any one country (or individual, for that matter) be of help to anyone else unless they are in a position to help themselves?

In other words...I cannot give to charity (monetary-wise) unless I have money to give, therefore I need to ensure I am a contributing member of society lest I become one of the citizens holding out MY hand for a donation! Nor can a country help another country if they are so far into debt they cannot dig themselves out of the hole they're in. It all looks fine and glossy on the surface, but dig a little deeper and it turns into a dark pit.

It seems to me that people claiming charity begins at home are the very people who are meanest in giving any form of charity at all. America gives, per head of population, relatively little aid to the rest of the world. Assuming for a moment that America believes charity begins at home, which country in (say) the whole of the African continent has needs which are less pressing than those of America or Americans?

Nor does the "We can't afford it, because we're too deep in debt" argument hold. America is only so far in debt because it has the wealth to support such debts. Otherwise, people wouldn't lend to it, would they? America is still the richest country in the world, hugging its wealth to itself like a Dickensian miser at Christmastime.

There are some huge complications here.

In some sense the US is one of the poorest nations in existence. Name any other nation with a debt anywhere close to 10.8 Trillion, and an out of control deficit?

Also in the US there are some incredibly wealthy people who are doing the right thing, look at Gates, Clinton, and various other "retired" individuals who run charitable foundations that are investing in projects to make a huge difference.

With all due respect to MMI, people have been throwing money on the problem for an entire generation, and if money were all it took to solve the problem it would be done by now. All the research in this area points to it being far more complicated than that.

At an individual level I think its a matter of individual rights and beliefs. I personally am not that well off and I sometimes give to causes I believe in, but claiming someone has a duty to throw money on a non-solution to a problem is rather extreme.

I think if you needed sizable donations from the rich for a plan to remedy global poverty you'd see a lot of success, provided the plan was going to work and could convince people it was going to work. Lots of people are jaded to Project X, Project Y or Project Z that will "save Africa" because their previous donations resulted in no real change, and those projects have largely failed spectacularly.

While what Gates and his ilk are doing is highly commendable ... perhaps they recognise where their vast wealth comes from ... what they are able to give is a miniscule fraction of what is needed, and only whole nations, acting in concert with others, can really make an impact.

You say the problem is complicated, and I'm sure it is - more complicated, no doubt, than I can possibly comprehend - because I see things simply, and I am ruled by emotions in some issues, where cold facts and logic would argue for death by starvation of the majority, or mutilation and rape instead by corrupt warlords and politicians, while the minority prosper peacefully in unimaginable (for some) luxury.

Who, like me, finds it sickening that the UK government can give $50bn or so to the Royal Bank of Scotland and the American government will give it billions of dollars more support, but the developed nations cannot rustle up $200bn between them to help undeveloped nations cope with global warming?

Like you say, Complicated. Maybe, however, it really isn't quite so complicated. Perhaps the solution is just bigger numbers: throw even more money at the problem - yes the West CAN afford it! Or, more likely, perhaps the problem is, and always will be, an on-going one which requires ongoing contributions to redistribute wealth at least enough to salve our calloused consciences and to ensure innocent, helpless farmers and villagers can look beyond yet another failed harvest and aspire to living on a little more than $1 a day.

[SadisticNature]

I find it extremely condescending to assert in the face of significant evidence to the contrary that the default distribution of wealth is the equal one. Many people have attained wealth through great accomplishments without which we would not be having this conversation. Microsoft has consistently innovated computing over the past 3 decades and has created products that people want, encouraging them to spend their money.

Wealth is generally earned, not given by the wealth fairy, and without a culture that protects it and grows it, it is generally wasted. This has been shown time and again with bad businesses and bad governments. Yet instead of attempting to generate a culture that protects wealth and investment in Africa you claim we should perpetually and repeatedly donate wealth as a form of equalization, with no plan of ever achieving improvement.

Furthermore, you think this should be done with what is largely other peoples money. I think there is some merit to going out and creating the next Microsoft or the next Google, changing the world, making your fortune then using it how you please (which generally seems to be solving the problems of the third world at least for wealth generated in computing).

[MMI]

Who said that?

In my posts you'll see I believe the amount we should give is well within our means and we wouldn't even notice it.

... unless we're counting, that is.

[Thorne]

Who said that?

In my posts you'll see I believe the amount we should give is well within our means and we wouldn't even notice it.

... unless we're counting, that is.

You said it yourself.

small amounts of aid don't help much, and only massive support leading to reconstruction and development is enough. It might impoverish the donors somewhat at first, but both giver and recipient will benefit in the long run.

That's giving until it hurts, and then some.

[MMI]

Well, you're right. I did say that. A bad choice of words on my part. I accept I was wrong and apologise for my slipshod writing.

I don't like resorting to statistics, because laymen such as we are likely to get them wrong. We've seen examples of statistics being presented on these threads before, distorted out of recognition in order to bolster an argument. However, the following statistics do represent my understanding of the problem and if they are wrong, then so am I.

Europe represents 15% of the world's population. It owns just under 30% of the whole planet's net worth.

USA and Canada represent just 5% of the world's population. Between them, they own almost 35% of the world's net worth.

(Source: UN-WIDER report on worldwide distribution of household wealth as quoted in Wikipedia).

Simple arithmetic tells me that this means 1 person in 5 owns 65% of the world's net worth while 4 people in 5 have to share a meagre 35%. Now, I don't know how much is necessary to raise the standard of living of the world's most impoverished people above subsistence level, but I am convinced that the wealthiest 20% can afford to give whatever is needed and still have copious amounts of wealth left to indulge their selfishness.

So I was wrong to say giving large amounts of aid would impoverish us: it wouldn't hurt us at all! Why, US and Canada could probably do it by themselves, and still only fall to Europe's standard of living. Fat chance of it happening though.

As for the charge of arrogance, maybe I am. But not in this case.

[Carpe Coma]

Well, you're right. I did say that. A bad choice of words on my part. I accept I was wrong and apologise for my slipshod writing.

I don't like resorting to statistics, because laymen such as we are likely to get them wrong. We've seen examples of statistics being presented on these threads before, distorted out of recognition in order to bolster an argument. However, the following statistics do represent my understanding of the problem and if they are wrong, then so am I.

Europe represents 15% of the world's population. It owns just under 30% of the whole planet's net worth.

USA and Canada represent just 5% of the world's population. Between them, they own almost 35% of the world's net worth.

(Source: UN-WIDER report on worldwide distribution of household wealth as quoted in Wikipedia).

Simple arithmetic tells me that this means 1 person in 5 owns 65% of the world's net worth while 4 people in 5 have to share a meagre 35%. Now, I don't know how much is necessary to raise the standard of living of the world's most impoverished people above subsistence level, but I am convinced that the wealthiest 20% can afford to give whatever is needed and still have copious amounts of wealth left to indulge their selfishness.

How do they define wealth? Monetary value? If so, then I have a secret for you: the majority of wealth in modern countries is not transportable/transferable in any reasonable sense of the term. Instead, it is tied up in capital and debt. Secondly, the fact which you seem to gloss over, is that the countries which are still seriously impoverished almost always are that way for a reason. Wealth does not happen by accident and transferring it isn't as simple as handing some tribesman a $100 bill.

Drop the high-and-mighty "selfishness" crap. Without the concept of personal property, of ownership, we would all be dirt poor.

So I was wrong to say giving large amounts of aid would impoverish us: it wouldn't hurt us at all! Why, US and Canada could probably do it by themselves, and still only fall to Europe's standard of living. Fat chance of it happening though.

Accepting for a second that this idea of yours is even viable; we have a great case study of what happens when you suddenly dump a crap-ton wealth onto an impoverished region. It's called the Middle East. Less than 100 years ago, the whole region was little more than sand dunes. Then with our demand for oil and their supply, we have poured wealth into a region that was little more than nomadic tribes. That worked out swell, don't you think? Some of the reasons that wealth turned the region into to the Middle East we know and loath are the same reasons that it will fail pretty much everywhere else.

As for the charge of arrogance, maybe I am. But not in this case.

Actually you are quite arrogant to think that you know how to eradicate poverty when you have done little to no research on it.

[MMI]

How do they define wealth? No idea - and probably wouldn't understand it if I tried. But here's a secret for you, even if the property in question isn't physically transferrable, ownership is. The west "owns" much of the wealth that is rooted in the third world. Next, there's an awful lot of wealth that is physically movable. That's how the West got it: digging it out of African soil and shipping it back where they could "deal" in it.

The reasons impoverished countries are that way are (1) they are underdeveloped (2) they are/have been exploited and/or (3) they are badly governed.

It is within our power to address each of those reasons if we want to, and it is appalling to realise how many people here consider their fellow man is not worth getting off their fat arses for, and who resent my pointing this out. If that makes me high and mighty, then, good!

And the acquisition of wealth did happen by chance. Oil in the Middle East wasn't put there by design. South Africa's gold wasn't the result of someone's careful planning. Zimbabwe's diamonds weren't left there as a present for Robert Mugabe. America's wealth was due to its natural resources first of all - to wheat, tobacco, and timber, to coal, iron and so on, not its "work ethic". That came later, when people like that Mr Ford introduced mass production on an industrial scale. It also came when commodity dealers started buying and selling those raw materials dug out of African soils even while they were still lying in some ship's hold awaiting embarcation, and sold over and over again before they arrived. "Wealth" was created that way too, but it didn't go back to Africa. It stayed in the West.

As for your example of the Middle East, I would make these points: the Middle East has not suffered as a result of oil discoveries, it has become enormously wealthy. As a result, a number of emirates have grown up which are highly stable and which enjoy a very high standard of living in a physically hostile environment. Many public and social services are available there which are the equal of those in America, or are better, even. Given a stable and peacful political environment, they would assuredly and rapidly develop into western-style economies; they would gradually redistribute their wealth as a middle class grew up, and they would deal with their own poverty problems. This would be to everyone's benefit.

However, the political environment is not peaceful. There is Israel, which seems to be permanently at war with its neightbours, there is Palestine, whose rulers are bent on the destruction of Israel. There is Syria, once in line for an American invasion, but luckily escaped because the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be more protracted affairs than Bush planned. My point is, the troubles in the Middle East are not due to the fact that Arab states are massively rich or are still poor, they are due to political reasons which the West is responsible for.

Actually you are quite arrogant to think that you know how to eradicate poverty when you have done little to no research on it.

Pardon me! My field of expertise is in another area entirely. I should have realised I have no right to form an opinion based on other people's research.

But, then, your reseach seems to be no better than mine ...

[Carpe Coma]

How do they define wealth? No idea - and probably wouldn't understand it if I tried. But here's a secret for you, even if the property in question isn't physically transferrable, ownership is. The west "owns" much of the wealth that is rooted in the third world. Next, there's an awful lot of wealth that is physically movable. That's how the West got it: digging it out of African soil and shipping it back where they could "deal" in it.

I infer that you are referring to the precious stone/metals trade. That's a drain to be sure, however the countries that those companies operate in allow them to persist. Bad government is the responsibility of the people it governs as any government can only exist when the people allow it to. Not to mention that you don't need significant natural resources to have a healthy economy. Look at Hong Kong.

Alright, say we transfer some ownership. It can't be to something outside of the region as what good does that accomplish when they have no access? To whom do we give it to? As what good does that gift do for anybody, if they don't have the vaguest idea what to do with it? Unless you are proposing handing it over to the very same bad governments that are responsible for the country's continued mess in the first place.

The reasons impoverished countries are that way are (1) they are underdeveloped (2) they are/have been exploited and/or (3) they are badly governed.

There's more to it than that, but that is a good start. Another particularly common issue is civil unrest, a culture that doesn't support economic principals, wide spread corruption, etc. Only in one of those cases can large scale charity do anything more than provide temporary relief and prolong the conditions they currently suffer. It's easy to blame it on 'exploitation'. Though just like in any bad relationship, it takes two to tango.

It is within our power to address each of those reasons if we want to,

Yes, however you want to address it through a gross violation of their right to self govern, massive social upheaval, and who knows what else.

and it is appalling to realise how many people here consider their fellow man is not worth getting off their fat arses for, and who resent my pointing this out. If that makes me high and mighty, then, good!

See, this is where you get in trouble. You start going off like it is a moral crusade. You know what? That just pisses people off.

And the acquisition of wealth did happen by chance. Oil in the Middle East wasn't put there by design.

No it wasn't, but they chose to sell it. The creation and acquisition of wealth is always a conscious choice. Long term economic success does not happen at random. Sure, anybody can win the lottery, but lottery winnings don't build and maintain continents.

South Africa's gold wasn't the result of someone's careful planning. Zimbabwe's diamonds weren't left there as a present for Robert Mugabe. America's wealth was due to its natural resources first of all - to wheat, tobacco, and timber, to coal, iron and so on, not its "work ethic".

Have to disagree with you there. Natural resources were a great boon to be sure, however the "protestant work ethic" led to a very high investment in capital goods and education which has paid off many times over. A country can have great natural resources and still be dirt poor, without even being exploited (imagine that!).

That came later, when people like that Mr Ford introduced mass production on an industrial scale.

Actually, it was the cotton gin that is generally considered the "start" of the industrial revolution. What really kicked the economy into high gear and brought us to the fore was WWII. We built a ton of manufacturing capacity while helping to destroy everyone else's. Combine that with the national highway system and the best capital markets in the world, and that's why we became a super power, instead of just another 1st world country.

It also came when commodity dealers started buying and selling those raw materials dug out of African soils even while they were still lying in some ship's hold awaiting embarcation, and sold over and over again before they arrived. "Wealth" was created that way too, but it didn't go back to Africa. It stayed in the West.

Buying and selling the same thing over and over doesn't create wealth, it just helps what ever is being bought and sold reach it's peak value.

As for your example of the Middle East, I would make these points: the Middle East has not suffered as a result of oil discoveries, it has become enormously wealthy. As a result, a number of emirates have grown up which are highly stable and which enjoy a very high standard of living in a physically hostile environment.

The 'standard of living' in oil dependent countries is very very top heavy, so looking at averages isn't very telling. What do you think is would happen if the oil market dried up?

Many public and social services are available there which are the equal of those in America, or are better, even. Given a stable and peacful political environment, they would assuredly and rapidly develop into western-style economies; they would gradually redistribute their wealth as a middle class grew up, and they would deal with their own poverty problems. This would be to everyone's benefit.

However, the political environment is not peaceful. There is Israel, which seems to be permanently at war with its neightbours, there is Palestine, whose rulers are bent on the destruction of Israel. There is Syria, once in line for an American invasion, but luckily escaped because the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be more protracted affairs than Bush planned. My point is, the troubles in the Middle East are not due to the fact that Arab states are massively rich or are still poor, they are due to political reasons which the West is responsible for.

I would counter with these points:

Israel isn't at a permanent state of war with it's neighbors. It's neighbors are at a permanent state of war with Israel. Big difference. Much of the Mideast has chosen their unstable political climate because they can afford it due to their essentially free money. That is what happens when the economics of choice are skewed by long term, essentially free, money.

We funnel so much money into that area that it's ridiculous. Sure, they have great social services if you are a straight muslim male, they could practically afford to pave the region in asphalt at this point. Expect varying degrees of "Fuck You" if you are anything else though (including, but not limited to; ostracization, death by stoning, death by hanging, murder by family...).

A lot of the current ongoing conflicts there are financed by our money (or some other country's). Palestine's war against Israel? Paid for by other middle east countries, who can afford it why? Iraq's attempt to commit genocide against the Kurds. Thank the soviets for the equipment. Continued social oppression/murder of minorities, secularists, and intellectuals? Allowed to continue due to the governments being propped up by outside money.

We bootstrapped them so fast that they never had to develop a sense of human rights, hence the ongoing violations when it comes to religious doctrine, women, secularism, and anyone just plain different. Yes, the Western money is largely responsible for the fact that the Middle East never learned the religious/social/sexual/racial tolerances that the rest of the first world had to. Now let's multiply that over a couple continents. That's the result of the kind of massive charity you are talking about.

Arguably, the west is also responsible for Japan's little rampage during WWII because the west forced their basically still medieval country's ports open at gunpoint. Once again, it is a culture that never had to abandon their xenophobia in order to achieve economic success (yes, the xenophobia and sense of racial superiority were major fuels). If it wasn't for the fact that Japan's military was effectively abolished post-WWII, well the prospects wouldn't be good. Bootstrapping economies comes at a major human cost. You end up paying Paul's present by robbing Peter's future.

Pardon me! My field of expertise is in another area entirely. I should have realised I have no right to form an opinion based on other people's research.

You didn't claim to have an opinion. You claimed to be right and implied that others were morally inferior for not agreeing with you. Those are two different things. "I like the color blue" is an opinion.

But, then, your reseach seems to be no better than mine ...

Judging from things so far, I would posit that my understanding seems to be a lot better. It just isn't palatable to you. But then, that's just my opinion

[MMI]

Apologies for the length of this post, but full quotes are needed for context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMI
How do they define wealth? No idea - and probably wouldn't understand it if I tried. But here's a secret for you, even if the property in question isn't physically transferrable, ownership is. The west "owns" much of the wealth that is rooted in the third world. Next, there's an awful lot of wealth that is physically movable. That's how the West got it: digging it out of African soil and shipping it back where they could "deal" in it.

I infer that you are referring to the precious stone/metals trade. That's a drain to be sure, however the countries that those companies operate in allow them to persist. Bad government is the responsibility of the people it governs as any government can only exist when the people allow it to. Not to mention that you don't need significant natural resources to have a healthy economy. Look at Hong Kong.

Alright, say we transfer some ownership. It can't be to something outside of the region as what good does that accomplish when they have no access? To whom do we give it to? As what good does that gift do for anybody, if they don't have the vaguest idea what to do with it? Unless you are proposing handing it over to the very same bad governments that are responsible for the country's continued mess in the first place.

Pretty much the only wealth that cannot be moved is land. Land in the third world has been acquired by the West using both fair and foul means, and it is being used primarily for the benefit of the developed countries. I can cite one example I came across recently. A well-known Italian fashion group has purchased land in a South American country which it uses to produce wool from enormous herds of sheep so that this can be turned into expensive clothing for fashion conscious dilettantes in Europe and North America. A few shepherd might be paid reasonably well by South American standards: let's hope so. However, the land that is being used was originally acquired by driving the Indian occupiers off and into city slums without compensation. Now that a few Indians have tried to repossess their homeland, the company in question (pursuing its “ethical” policy) has offered to purchase an alternative site for them, hundreds of miles away from their original location, but it will not yield at all with regard the original land. I suppose the Indians can consider themselves lucky to be dealing with an “ethical” company!

Give the land back, I say. It will damage the company's finances for a while, but that's the cost of exploitation, isn't it?

Regarding precious minerals, and even mundane products such as sheep and cattle, the West “takes” them at knock-down prices so that the work that goes into extracting or producing them barely pays for the workers' subsistence. In other words, any aid we grudgingly give is counterbalanced by the price subsidies drawn out of the poor miners/farmers who sell to us. Fair Trade? Right!

There may be bad government, but, where it is sufficiently bad, I contend that we should ignore it or remove it. Who cares that it is the “legitimate” Government if it is killing its subjects by neglect! As I said before, sovereignty is subject to laws of humanity, and foreign powers have a right and duty to enforce humane regimes where such laws are being flouted.

You're right about Hong Kong, though. Virtually no natural resources of its own. It makes its fortunes by receiving investment from international conglomerates which, in turn, invest in other countries and by buying and selling their produce. The wealthy creating more wealth out of other people's labour and resources. Oh … and tax evasion, too.

Quote:
The reasons impoverished countries are that way are (1) they are underdeveloped (2) they are/have been exploited and/or (3) they are badly governed.

There's more to it than that, but that is a good start. Another particularly common issue is civil unrest, a culture that doesn't support economic principals, wide spread corruption, etc. Only in one of those cases can large scale charity do anything more than provide temporary relief and prolong the conditions they currently suffer. It's easy to blame it on 'exploitation'. Though just like in any bad relationship, it takes two to tango.

Aid can be given, exploitation can cease and bad governments can be neutralised/removed.

Two to tango: an oppressor and the oppressed. But the West is sometimes a third dancer, dancing to the oppressor's tune, and at other times, it is the musician, leading the whole dance.

Quote:
It is within our power to address each of those reasons if we want to,

Yes, however you want to address it through a gross violation of their right to self govern, massive social upheaval, and who knows what else.

Indeed, who knows? But see above: the right of self-government is limited by the obligation to govern responsibly.

Quote:
and it is appalling to realise how many people here consider their fellow man is not worth getting off their fat arses for, and who resent my pointing this out. If that makes me high and mighty, then, good!

See, this is where you get in trouble. You start going off like it is a moral crusade. You know what? That just pisses people off.

I care not one whit whether those who cavil about sending foreign aid to the needy find me annoying. And I find myself in not the slightest bit of trouble over it.

Quote:
And the acquisition of wealth did happen by chance. Oil in the Middle East wasn't put there by design.

No it wasn't, but they chose to sell it. The creation and acquisition of wealth is always a conscious choice. Long term economic success does not happen at random. Sure, anybody can win the lottery, but lottery winnings don't build and maintain continents.

It's a conscious choice, perhaps. But the discovery of wealth isn't.

Where it is a choice, the wherewithal to create or acquire wealth is a prerequisite, too. Britain didn't have the wealth and resources it needed to become the world's richest and most influential nation in the 19th century without appropriating the wealth of other places. It wouldn't have mattered how often it decided to get rich if it never had an empire, nor how hard its labourers worked: it just wouldn't have happened.

Quote:
South Africa's gold wasn't the result of someone's careful planning. Zimbabwe's diamonds weren't left there as a present for Robert Mugabe. America's wealth was due to its natural resources first of all - to wheat, tobacco, and timber, to coal, iron and so on, not its "work ethic".

Have to disagree with you there. Natural resources were a great boon to be sure, however the "protestant work ethic" led to a very high investment in capital goods and education which has paid off many times over. A country can have great natural resources and still be dirt poor, without even being exploited (imagine that!).

The American colonies were rich before any protestant landed on American soil, and they remained so even after those religious misfits left their European homes to live in their own Utopias.

But my point was, America had the natural resources, exploited them for their own good and kept the wealth generated thereby. Compare that with Africa … ah, it completely breaks down after, “had the natural resources...”

Quote:
That came later, when people like that Mr Ford introduced mass production on an industrial scale.

Actually, it was the cotton gin that is generally considered the "start" of the industrial revolution. What really kicked the economy into high gear and brought us to the fore was WWII. We built a ton of manufacturing capacity while helping to destroy everyone else's. Combine that with the national highway system and the best capital markets in the world, and that's why we became a super power, instead of just another 1st world country.

Cotton gin … Spinning Jenny … whatever.

As for the rest of your comment here, I couldn't agree more … keeping everything for ourselves … destroying what we can't have … creating wealth by paper transactions … nothing here for the poor, is there?

Quote:
It also came when commodity dealers started buying and selling those raw materials dug out of African soils even while they were still lying in some ship's hold awaiting embarcation, and sold over and over again before they arrived. "Wealth" was created that way too, but it didn't go back to Africa. It stayed in the West.

Buying and selling the same thing over and over doesn't create wealth, it just helps what ever is being bought and sold reach it's peak value.

Consider your comments regarding Hong Kong at the start of your post.

Consider the NY Stock Exchange and tell me how much wealth isn't created there.

Explain to me how it is that merchant bankers have so little working capital yet grow fat by floating huge corporations, or if not that, then how is it that stockbrokers make fortunes buying and selling bits of paper called shares (or, nowadays, their electronic equivalents), but they never actually own any.

Then tell me none of them got wealthy that way.

Quote:
As for your example of the Middle East, I would make these points: the Middle East has not suffered as a result of oil discoveries, it has become enormously wealthy. As a result, a number of emirates have grown up which are highly stable and which enjoy a very high standard of living in a physically hostile environment.

The 'standard of living' in oil dependent countries is very very top heavy, so looking at averages isn't very telling. What do you think is would happen if the oil market dried up?

I think your original point was that these places did get rich and couldn't cope with it. Now you seem to be saying, Oh alright, they are coping with their riches, but what will they do when they get poor again.

Quote:

Many public and social services are available there which are the equal of those in America, or are better, even. Given a stable and peacful political environment, they would assuredly and rapidly develop into western-style economies; they would gradually redistribute their wealth as a middle class grew up, and they would deal with their own poverty problems. This would be to everyone's benefit.

However, the political environment is not peaceful. There is Israel, which seems to be permanently at war with its neightbours, there is Palestine, whose rulers are bent on the destruction of Israel. There is Syria, once in line for an American invasion, but luckily escaped because the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be more protracted affairs than Bush planned. My point is, the troubles in the Middle East are not due to the fact that Arab states are massively rich or are still poor, they are due to political reasons which the West is responsible for.

I would counter with these points:

Israel isn't at a permanent state of war with it's neighbors. It's neighbors are at a permanent state of war with Israel. Big difference. Much of the Mideast has chosen their unstable political climate because they can afford it due to their essentially free money. That is what happens when the economics of choice are skewed by long term, essentially free, money.

We funnel so much money into that area that it's ridiculous. Sure, they have great social services if you are a straight muslim male, they could practically afford to pave the region in asphalt at this point. Expect varying degrees of "Fuck You" if you are anything else though (including, but not limited to; ostracization, death by stoning, death by hanging, murder by family...).

A lot of the current ongoing conflicts there are financed by our money (or some other country's). Palestine's war against Israel? Paid for by other middle east countries, who can afford it why? Iraq's attempt to commit genocide against the Kurds. Thank the soviets for the equipment. Continued social oppression/murder of minorities, secularists, and intellectuals? Allowed to continue due to the governments being propped up by outside money.

We bootstrapped them so fast that they never had to develop a sense of human rights, hence the ongoing violations when it comes to religious doctrine, women, secularism, and anyone just plain different. Yes, the Western money is largely responsible for the fact that the Middle East never learned the religious/social/sexual/racial tolerances that the rest of the first world had to. Now let's multiply that over a couple continents. That's the result of the kind of massive charity you are talking about.

Arguably, the west is also responsible for Japan's little rampage during WWII because the west forced their basically still medieval country's ports open at gunpoint. Once again, it is a culture that never had to abandon their xenophobia in order to achieve economic success (yes, the xenophobia and sense of racial superiority were major fuels). If it wasn't for the fact that Japan's military was effectively abolished post-WWII, well the prospects wouldn't be good. Bootstrapping economies comes at a major human cost. You end up paying Paul's present by robbing Peter's future.

Whether Israel is at war with its neighbours, or its neighbours are at war with it is a difference with no meaning at all. Israel is on a permanent war footing, and is perfectly happy to launch reprisal attacks before, during or after any attack is made on it. And its declared policy is to ensure that all fighting takes place outside its own territory.

I don't believe the Arab nations decided to fight Israel simply because they could afford it. The notion is preposterous. They are fighting because their brother Palestinians were driven out of their homes in order to create a Zionist country where their homeland used to be: a total anathema to them.

The rest of that particular section of your post seems like a right-wing rant and is best passed over with as little comment as possible. So I will content myself by disagreeing with every word of it:the relief of poverty does not create, cause or lead to religious fundamentalism, funding for anti-American causes, genocide, xenophobia, or any of the other evils mentioned. However, the provision of aid to places where such conditions exist without attempting to change them is foolhardy.

Quote:
Pardon me! My field of expertise is in another area entirely. I should have realised I have no right to form an opinion based on other people's research.

You didn't claim to have an opinion. You claimed to be right and implied that others were morally inferior for not agreeing with you. Those are two different things. "I like the color blue" is an opinion.

I cannot fault you for liking blue: that's a question of taste. I can fault you for not helping the poor. That's a question of morality, and your position is inferior.

Quote:
But, then, your reseach seems to be no better than mine ...

Judging from things so far, I would posit that my understanding seems to be a lot better. It just isn't palatable to you. But then, that's just my opinion

Just because you have disagreed with me doesn't demonstrate your superior understanding. Just your contrariness.

I have stated my position and supported it from a reputable source. You have asked inane questions in order to undermine the validity of the research I rely upon. You have offered no viable alternative. Let me tell you this, it doesn't matter how wealth is defined because whatever sensible means of measuring it you use, the West has most of it and the third world has virtually none. This is an inequitable position which should be put right as soon as possible. No amount of smug self-satisfied nit-picking is going to change that.

If you want to maintain that providing just enough aid to keep people alive in fear and misery a little bit longer is a better way of dealing with the world's impoverished countries than feeding them and helping them to develop into stronger, stable and reliable nations – possibly friendly ones too – then you are profoundly wrong, but wealthier. That's not aid, it's torture.

[Muskan]

There is a good discussion about foreign aid vs foreign investment.

[SadisticNature]

I find this question is tilting at straw-men.

The default assumption is that:
1) All foreign aid is given to governments
2) All foreign aid is done without checks and balances
3) All foreign aid is given to dictatorships

In such a situation foreign aid is obviously a bad idea. In fact, Bill Clinton runs a charity that refuses to give money under conditions 2) and 3), if an agency, organization or government fails to meet checks and balances, which include financial transparency than they lose the money.

Obviously foreign aid should be done properly but to suggest that its done worse than it actually is, and imply that it shouldn't be done at all is misguided.

Consider the following example: The roads in rural South Dakota are utter trash, in fact I consider them impossible to drive in a small vehicle. Therefore the government should stop spending money on roads at all, after all they can't do it correctly.

[IAN 2411]

I thought this thread was about foreign aid, but if you are talking about cold cash then it is now out of order. The UK, the USA, and some countries in Europe have been giving monetry aid to certain countries for decades, and these countries are no further forward now than they were when we started. You can also bet your life that they will be back again next year with the begging bowl, for the western suckers to fill it up. I am not against aid, i am for it, but if we went out and developed their countries and built their factories, working out a plan for them to stand on their own feet, well that is diferent. These countries wont allow that though and why, because it makes them look silly in the eyes of the world, but begging for a few billion here and there dooes not count. Charity does begin at home, and if your own country is in shit state like the UK is at the moment, what are we doing giving away £3.5 billion to aid countries through the CO2 capping? the mind bogles to find the reason for putting our own country in debt to help countries that do not want to help themselves. We have 4 million on unemployment benafit with only a million job vacancies, that even students straight out of collage are being turned down for, because they have not been trained. These countries that beg for aid should be told, show us what you have done with the last few billion, other than line your own pockets, and we might lend you some more, let's get out of this stupid act of giving, and getting nothing in return except the finger when you ask them to help in time of troubles.

[MMI]

I thought this thread was about foreign aid, but if you are talking about cold cash then it is now out of order. The UK, the USA, and some countries in Europe have been giving monetry aid to certain countries for decades, and these countries are no further forward now than they were when we started. You can also bet your life that they will be back again next year with the begging bowl, for the western suckers to fill it up. I am not against aid, i am for it, but if we went out and developed their countries and built their factories, working out a plan for them to stand on their own feet, well that is diferent. These countries wont allow that though and why, because it makes them look silly in the eyes of the world, but begging for a few billion here and there dooes not count. Charity does begin at home, and if your own country is in shit state like the UK is at the moment, what are we doing giving away £3.5 billion to aid countries through the CO2 capping? the mind bogles to find the reason for putting our own country in debt to help countries that do not want to help themselves. We have 4 million on unemployment benafit with only a million job vacancies, that even students straight out of collage are being turned down for, because they have not been trained. These countries that beg for aid should be told, show us what you have done with the last few billion, other than line your own pockets, and we might lend you some more, let's get out of this stupid act of giving, and getting nothing in return except the finger when you ask them to help in time of troubles.

You seem to overlook, especially in the case of the British colonies, that rather than helping these emerging nations that relied upon the Mother Country for support, and investment we chose to bleed them dry of their natural wealth (not to mention their cultural riches) and to use it for ourselves. In return we told them that they were British and were entitled to come to the UK and we promised them they could live the good life there. We lied. But we always did. So nothing new there.

So let's try to return the favour now. We will probably manage to make a profit out of doing so, so what's holding us back?

We, like all wealthy people (and we are the 4th/5th richest nation in the world), stay rich because we take from others and never give back - at least not until whatever we took is no longer of any use to us. WE might have a lot of debt. We have far more credit.

[Lion]

Leave sarcasm out of a discussion