Foreign aid - good or evil?

[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]

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).

Much of Microsoft's success was due to a strategy that prevented other firms from competing on equal terms. I understand the court cases are still being heard, and that, in Europe at least, things aren't going too well for Bill Gates's team.

I cannot think of a better or fairer system for distributing wealth than equal shares. In my observation wealth is rarely earned. It is frequently passed on from one person to another, either through inheritance or marriage or some similar arrangement. And there's taxation, of course, a much under-utilised tool.

Where wealth accumulates through enterprise, you will generally find the seed capital came from the already-wealthy, and the returns go back to the same people. Bill Gates is the exception, not the rule.

As for a plan to develop Africa, I would love there to be one, but while the West is unwilling to give enough to ensure even bare survival for many, such a plan cannot be contemplated. I do not accept your criticism - you cannot complain about the absence of a plan for reconstruction when such a thing is currently impossible. (There are, however, many under-funded organisations whose objectives are to assist in developing African nations.)

Yes, I want to use other people's money. To be honest with you, I am reluctant to give all of my own, and, somehow, I don't think it would be enough anyway. I want to use your money, and everyone else's ... not all of it, but a reasonable amount. Maybe your standard of living will fall a little, but the standard of many other people would rise a lot. I think that's justification enough. So international aid by national governments working together is what is necessary in my view, and no-one can say it won't work, because it's never been tried - not seriously anyway.

[Thorne]

Yes, I want to use other people's money. To be honest with you, I am reluctant to give all of my own, and, somehow, I don't think it would be enough anyway. I want to use your money, and everyone else's ... not all of it, but a reasonable amount. Maybe your standard of living will fall a little, but the standard of many other people would rise a lot. I think that's justification enough. So international aid by national governments working together is what is necessary in my view, and no-one can say it won't work, because it's never been tried - not seriously anyway.

Sure. Everyone's standard of living drops a little, and the desperately poor will get a little money. And next week, or next month, or next year, when all the money is gone and they are still desperately poor we'll do it all over again. Nothing is gained, but so much is lost. And the criminals, who prey on the poor, and the tyrants and dictators who prey on their own people, will get a little richer as they steal the money you so politely give them for redistribution. Great plan.