http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
This is most intriguing to me, as it goes against everything I, and most other people, would believe to be right. It's very interesting.
What do ya'll think? After reading the article I find it a very simple thing...they don't want our assistance, don't give it to them. Simple as that. There are many countries out there that could use our aid and assistance without us forcing it down thier throats if they really don't want it. But I am sure the black community here in the US would go nuts if we discontinued aid to Africa....and I'm not so sure they wouldn't be right. But, as I said, if they don't want it....don't give it to them.
I say we send aid to Switzerland so they will send us some good hot chocolate 
I think that guy is crazy. If we all stopped sending aid to Africa, all those people would die with desease and hunger. He must be going nuts to be honest, i mean, i bet if he actually lived in Africa he wouldnt post on this forum saying "stop sending aid to us". In fact he wouldnt even have internet...not even a computer. I reckon we should evacuate poor countries in Africa and send everyone to more developed countries able to offer "the minimum" conditions for human life.
| pecad0re wrote: |
| I think that guy is crazy. If we all stopped sending aid to Africa, all those people would die with desease and hunger. He must be going nuts to be honest, i mean, i bet if he actually lived in Africa he wouldnt post on this forum saying "stop sending aid to us". In fact he wouldnt even have internet...not even a computer. I reckon we should evacuate poor countries in Africa and send everyone to more developed countries able to offer "the minimum" conditions for human life. |
Who, me....or the guy in that article? Do you honestly believe that any country that didn't really want our aid would accept us going in there and moving them to a "better developed" country?? If you do I am afraid you are a bit delusional my friend. They would see it as an act against them and thier way of life and the US was just trying to show the world how much better off they are when compaired to the rest of us. That exact attitude is one of the reasons why we are having so many problems in the US today....we are trying to force our way of life on countries that not only don't want it, but they feel they don't need it. Alot of these people do not think or act like we do in the US and they may not be as comfortable in our way of life as we are. Some people also thrive on misery and turmoil....if that's what makes them happy, then go for it, as long as it doesn't spill over and ruin my day too.You're all missing the point. He's saying that when the west sends aid (agricultural products, clothing, etc.), it depresses the market for those things in the Kenya (and other African nations). It's a basic economic priciple. When free grain is sent into the country, then the locals who farm it can't sell their own (who would buy it when you can get it free from the Americans?). When free clothes are sent into the country the tailors can't sell their clothing. This creates a cycle that keeps entrepreneurs from starting new businesses. Every country that has ever gone from poor to rich has done so by creating their own economy (South Korea, Singapore), by trading with other countries. No country in the history of the world has ever created a successful economy by accepting aid. On top of all this, a vast majority of the aid goes into the pockets of the corrupt politicians. None of this is at all surprising to economists. They have been saying this for decades. The problem is that most of the world doesn't understand this process, so politicians can't get votes by declining to give or receive aid.
It's very egotistic for westerners to claim that Africans wouldn't survive without them!!!!
I don't agree with the Shikwati. He mades a couple of points I agree with, but it is his economics that I don't agree with.
I particularly agree about food. The US and EU massively subsidise their food. That hurts everybody else, making farmers go broke elsewhere. The EU, for example, spends $2 per cow per day, which is more than many people in developing countries live on. Basically this leads to an overproduction of food in the West, which is then exported it to poor countries at (taxpayer) subsidised prices. It's cheaper, but it then drives farmers out of business. Who would keep a cow when it is cheaper to buy EU milk powder?
We even see that happening to Australia, where sugar farmers who are just as competitive as anywhere else in the world get driven off the land by distorted world markets. Now they are basically being paid to get off the land. It's sad, and is the fault of the completely uneven world playing field, not their own.
I also have a problem with "aid". I don't agree that aid is a bad thing, I definitely think it is good. If you want to get anything going, you need investment to start it off. If there's a lack of electricity, good roads, schools, or hospitals then these things need to be built. You need to give people the opportunity to help themselves. A little investment at the start gets the ball rolling.
But at the moment "aid" doesn't mean giving money. It means lending money. That's a problem because the poorest countries end up with massive debts and actually pay back more in interest than they are given in grants. I want to see money being used to build schools, not to service debt.
I certainly don't agree that cutting off aid is the right way to go. This is what happens when economists take their theories way too far, losing touch with reality. That sort of thing would only lead to death and even more poverty (in fact, what he is suggesting sounds just like 1800's Europe which had rampant poverty). I think he should go back to basics and read about how people really have pulled out of poverty, instead of wild theories which have never worked in reality. He should start with Keynes, the depression and the Marshall plan.
| smalls wrote: |
| No country in the history of the world has ever created a successful economy by accepting aid. |
The Marshall plan is a good example of successful economies built because of aid.
[/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan[/url]
Also, I disagree about South Korea, since they received vast quantities of aid during the 1950's and 1960's at times as large as their entire national budget. In fact, they lent money at negative interest based on the money they received from Japan and the US.nopaniers,
I was trying to make a point.....that the article wasn't saying "cut these guys off", it was saying, "what we're doing is killing the African economy." While I agree that some Keynesian intervention might be necessary to get a little jump start (for infrastructure), I'm a big fan of free markets, so the Austrian school (mainly Hayek) guides most of opinions.
I agree with your take on the word "aid". It doesn't have to be a bad thing. Certainly some research in the western world on better ways to modify and grow crops, along with some malaria and AIDS relief could (and does) save millions of lives. But depressing their markets with our excess products isn't helping anyone. I think we mostly agree, I just came out of the gates a little strong because the posters here seemed to think the article was just about "cutting off" Africa.
I totally agree with it.
Don't be fooled
We are not helping them at all
We are giving some fish to them, and not teaching them how to fish;Also, many times, we give them the fish, but we expect to get paid for it in the future...
If they would really like to help, then they would "forget" the loans that they have given to them.
Simple as that.
| pecad0re wrote: |
| I think that guy is crazy. If we all stopped sending aid to Africa, all those people would die with desease and hunger. He must be going nuts to be honest, i mean, i bet if he actually lived in Africa he wouldnt post on this forum saying "stop sending aid to us". In fact he wouldnt even have internet...not even a computer. I reckon we should evacuate poor countries in Africa and send everyone to more developed countries able to offer "the minimum" conditions for human life. |
Umm.... He didn't post on this forum. He posted on http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html. But yeah, I think you're right, he wouldn't have anything if it weren't for us. | pecad0re wrote: |
| In fact he wouldnt even have internet...not even a computer. |
I think you need to read up on Africa.Mostly very true. Shame really these corrupt people are in power. Its these people that mean we have to keep giving aid. Currently if we were to stop they would charge higher taxes to get more money for themselfs. If the aid we gave was not to the countries but to charities who gave to those who needed the stuff sent out then those who colud afford it would have to buy them locally still so the markets wouldnt be affected.
Ideally, we could just remove the corrupt leaders and then Africa really could sort out all it's proplems itself. Still a bit of help never hurt anyone. We could sort out aids for them and they do everything else. that would speed things up.
| Vrythramax wrote: |
After reading the article I find it a very simple thing...they don't want our assistance, don't give it to them. Simple as that. There are many countries out there that could use our aid and assistance without us forcing it down thier throats if they really don't want it. But I am sure the black community here in the US would go nuts if we discontinued aid to Africa....and I'm not so sure they wouldn't be right. But, as I said, if they don't want it....don't give it to them.
|
The black community wouldn't go 'nuts' we actually understand the concept of if you give a man a fish, and don't teach him how to fish he will starve concept. Along with aid there have also been christian converts, following the theme of, convert or no food. They need to rebuild thier countries, europe hasz been depleeting thier resources for years, and they need to rebuild, they are requesting the dignity to reubuild by themselves, that is something I understand.smalls: I think we mostly agree too. I think I probably came out of the gates a bit strong as well. I'm sure Hayek does agree with you. I mostly agree, but only to a point, because I think that markets need to be controlled to curb the worst excesses. In any case, we would probably agree that too much subsidising and protection doesn't help and that the playing field should be much more even level than it is (even if we disagree on the exact level).
| Vrythramax wrote: |
The black community wouldn't go 'nuts' we actually understand the concept of if you give a man a fish, and don't teach him how to fish he will starve concept. |
If we cut off aid to Africa, you seriously don't think black people would be protesting in the streets?
I know they understand the concept, but I think it would be far to controversial.I understand that many African countries need outside help and donations for their struggling citizens. And doing that work is of great help to them. However, what has become a concern for many donators now is that those funds are not utilized in a proper manner, the people who really need aren't getting as much as they are supposed to get, meaning there are some who are actually getting rich this way while others continue remain the same despite getting donations for years. So, if we give them a chance to survive on their own it may be more constructive less they may wait for donations for years and never think of surviving themselves.
It pains me to think of those poor countries in African continent.
guys,
THIS IS A KENYAN SPEAKING. most of you dont understand. by giving and giving food to the poor areas of kenya, you make them become completly reliant on the west for food and goods. the problem is, we are stuck in a cycle because :
1, if the west stops giving aid, more people would die because thepoor community is too reliant on the west
2, i am very dissapointed because our kenyan government has failed to realise this and that they are not giving to the poor themselves
3, if the west continues to give aid, then the poor community will become attached to the food brought and our economy will fail.
I think what should happen is this: before the west stops giving aid to kenya, the kenyan community shuold stand up and protest or use any means to get into the governments head "the poor community needs support". now i say support because, if the government starts being like the west (only giving), then it will make no difference. however, if we SUPPORT them and teach them rather than purely give them the supplies, it might make a difference.
i am also dissapointed that people would say | Quote: |
| I reckon we should evacuate poor countries in Africa and send everyone to more developed countries able to offer "the minimum" conditions for human life |
THAT is NOT the solution to this. and the way europe and american aid organisations say we wouldnt survive without them. this is a purely biased and egoistic comment to make.
i also am really sad when the brittish and french colonised some african countries. WE HAD A WAY OF LIFE! WE DIDNT NEED YOUR WESTERNISED WAYS OF LIFE. who the hell would think | Quote: |
| He must be going nuts to be honest, i mean, i bet if he actually lived in Africa he wouldnt post on this forum saying "stop sending aid to us". In fact he wouldnt even have internet...not even a computer |
is a valid statment? who said we needed your internet and stuff (im not saying i dont like the net) and if britain didnt colonise us , there would be no need for aid to kenya and no need to post " stop aid to kenya".
overall, i agree with this guy but not to the point that we should stop aid completly i partly agree because new zealand is some what like that. most maori people live on government pension and they just sit in their house all day and let the tax payers to feed them. However, i think they should aid them by setting up schools or places to teach you ways of making a living.
"give a man a fish he doesnt go hungery for a day, teach a man how to fish he wont be hungery for ever" lol the quote is something like that.
This is a very interesting topic.
This is one single man's opinion, not a whole continent.
I think cutting off aid isn't the solution, but the whole situation is a mess.
It's a shame that a good thing (aid/helping), whether egotistical or not, isn't being used as it should, and may be doing more harm than good.
I dated a woman from South Africa (this doesn't make me an expert), but she was a nurse, and the amount of people in the hospitals she worked in was unbelieveable. I think the AIDS figures are bloated in some areas and underestimated in others.
Yes, Africa does have the internet.
It's unfortunate that many more will suffer before this will get better.
| CompactHaven wrote: |
| Vrythramax wrote: |
The black community wouldn't go 'nuts' we actually understand the concept of if you give a man a fish, and don't teach him how to fish he will starve concept. |
If we cut off aid to Africa, you seriously don't think black people would be protesting in the streets?
I know they understand the concept, but I think it would be far to controversial. |
Forgiveme, but I did not write that statement, that was a response to my original post.
Some valid arguements have been made here that I had not known of before my original post and gave me cause to look around. I still don't believe that we (the US) should continue to send aid to anybody who doesn't really want it, and we cannot force aid down anyones throat either. That only leads to resentment and possibly violence. We, the US, cannot and should not act as the world's babysitters.....we don't have the right to do it, and the world really doesn't have the right to ask us. Who are we that we can pass judgement on how other people live and by what standards they should live? America has enough of it's own internal problems that should be dealt with first, then maybe we can try and be charitable....charity begins at home.Shikwati is right, let the nature take its course and Africa will get better in 10 years. All you are doing is fueling the corrupt market with the donated produce.
No computers hey? I'm in Africa, I'm on a adsl connection and I've got 4 pcs less than 2 yrs old each (I've got a few older ones too including a 1987 laptop with a 20mb harddrive, mm we had them back in the 1980s too, actually my mother worked on one at Standard Bank back when pcs had their own rooms (+-30 years ago))
You want to know what kills africa?
Governments taxing subsitence farmers, people too lazy to work thanks to all the food that has been thrown at them and the attitude that puts us as savages in huts surrounded by lions.
The place that needs help is Zimbabwe. That's where the corrupt politicians are wreaking havoc, no it doesn't need food aid, almost nowhere in Africa does, we have plenty of farm land for anyone who feels like using it.
If you want to send aid don't send food, send qualified trainers and sponsor SA entrpeneurs with startup capital.
The "starving children in africa" refers only to the children living off US subsidies or me just before I cook myself dinner. The rest of them are quite skilled at getting food so don't worry about us.
The overcrowded hospitals are the same as those in any country, they're the public government sponsored ones. The private hospitals are quite serene.
May be they are right from their view (in the article).
But if at all you want to aid and because of this article, you want dont want to stop aid the Africans, then please look out for the nearest aiding centre where you can aid through funds. There are lot of things that you can do inside your country (if you dont want to do outside) rather than being "Internationlisation".
bye for now.
----
B.S.
If the "purpose" of the aid is not being met, then the approach to helping the so-called undeveloped economies should certainly be re-thought.
The big question is - would you rather feed a hungry man fish everyday, or would you teach him fishing.
So far a lot of aid has not been utilized properly, and the heads of many countries have no incentive to reform their dictatorial governments, since they are continuing to receive free dollars.
The aid must always be accompanied by "conditions of performance" if they are to really aid in developing the countries
I haven't read all the article, but if the "aid" only means food or those unsustainable resources, then yes, I think we should stop giving aid.
Teaching how to fish is always better than just giving. I think the aid should be given in a sustainable form, technology transfer for example. In the meantime improving education!!
Unfair trade is another killer of Afrika.
I personally think the best thing we can do is try to drum up more support for fighting AIDS in Africa. There are a great many charities out there.
Example:
http://www.stephenlewisfoundation.org/ Perhaps they feel like they are being treated like children and do not want help. If they don't want it, and won't appreciate it, why should we help? It might even be better for them to get things situated themselves without us.
help is only helpful if help is wanted..... these people obviously dont feel that they need help so i say DONT GIVE IT TO EM' AND DONT GIVE IT TO EM' WHEN THEY COME CRYING BACK ON THEIR STARVING BLOODY KNEES!!!!
kimrei, yes, I saw that article too. I wonder who would really want thousands of people to starve? Economic theories are all very well, but if it means killing people then I'm not for it.
seems a bizarre statement to make if it will potentially invlove the starving to death of his fellow countrymen.
I wouldnt stop sending aid to africa, I would just send it directly to the target areas, bypassing corrupt governments
To Shermanatortank: What exactly is bothering you?
how about the concept of sending out or improving existing rain machines to help with the drought?
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/stories/s740312.htm
that way the Kenyan's still need to work to survive but don't need to stick with the bad hand that nature's dealt them. This is something I've pondered on for quite some time and I've come to the conclusion that the article is true. Giving people food and everything they need is doing nothing but hurting the economy because it makes those people feel like they don't need to work and that they will receive goods for doing nothing.
I believe that the best type of aid is not simply giving somebody something, but maybe being generous by paying extra for what they produce, or buying something from them that you don't necessarily need or want.
It is my opinion that giving people things does make them lazy and does create poverty because they quit working for things and just sit and wait for someone to give them things, like a child dependent on it's parents.
I think stopping aid will result in too many deaths, instead the countries wanting to help the country should buy food/clothes in the reigon so the economy won't die and there will be competition which will allow a better economy. It sounds that only a few extra resources are needed to sustain the country, and I think they can do it themselves.
Forgive me for not having a valid opinion at the moment, but I must say I'm
I am really enjoying reading the different opinions disscussed with the initial posting. Good Topic
Maybe if they'd stop sending AIDS, then we wouldn't have to send aid. Africa has many problems to work out, and I am no expert there, so I don't want to comment anymore.
My first statement was meant for humor (I guess), and please don't take offense to it.
Why would you stop sending aid to Africa? I have hade many of my friends go to africa. If you see first hand what's happeneing in Africa you would be Outraged. So long the money goes towards things that the people would need, and it gets to the people that need it, I don't see why you wouldn't send aid to africa.
In the article the guy interviewed is wearing a suit and looks like he's doing pretty good in life. If only you could see how much good our aid in Africa is doing especially the poorest of poor countries in Africa. Aid has saved thounsands upon thousands of people. There's no reason we should cut aid from Africa.
p.s. The rain machine sounds like a cool idea, and it'll help thier economy and help them grow thier own crops.
| CompactHaven wrote: |
| Shadedflame NOT Vrythramax! wrote: |
The black community wouldn't go 'nuts' we actually understand the concept of if you give a man a fish, and don't teach him how to fish he will starve concept. |
If we cut off aid to Africa, you seriously don't think black people would be protesting in the streets?
I know they understand the concept, but I think it would be far to controversial. |
No it wouldn't why would we go against the will of our forefathers, they don't want you simply shouldn't give.They wouldn't have to starve and die for their economy to improve. Why not use a staggered system, so that aid diminishes slowly and at the same time their own economy is given the support it needs? I agree with the economics of the article. But I don't see how stopping aid all at once could do any good in the short run.
Stopping aid to Africa sounds good if we take the maxim Teach them to fish but not give them the fish. However, life is not so simple. One has to come to terms with the reality.
Having visited Africa three times last year, my heart bleeds for Africa. The poverty, the insecurity, the lack of order and basic necessities of life is indeed appaling.
What the people of Africa need to do is to take charge. Many countries there are rich in agricultural and mineral resources. However politicians take away all they have.
One needs to pray for Africa and also to go and help them out, if possible in various fields: education, health and HIV aids, most of all!
I think it's a matter of how you help. Don't give money or food, because you will destroy the economy. Buy their products, and the economy will develop. Boycot countries with corrupt governments, and favour those with (relatively) good governments.
It's like social security: you don't help someone by giving money, you help by helping him getting a job.
| Gnez wrote: |
| I think it's a matter of how you help. Don't give money or food, because you will destroy the economy. Buy their products, and the economy will develop. |
You're right, buying their products is what will bring these countries out of their holes. However, many westerners think it's evil to buy products that were built in "sweatshops" or in poor working conditions. It's too bad people just don't understand that poor working conditions are baby steps towards a more advanced economy. I won't go into it here, because no one reads long posts, but the basic principle is that you can't start at the top. You have to go through the steps to a successful wealthy economy. What we can do is help them go through those steps quickly (as has been done by South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and many other countries with free markets and, now, thriving economies.A lot of aid that goes to Africa never reaches the people. The governments keep it for themselves and spend it on arms and military and luxuries for themselves. So what's the point of sending money? I say send it somewhere else, or give it to charity.
Well after reading those posts i think that we should send aid to africa because we are all here to help each other if we remained selfish like this and not helped countries in africa, canada, brazil then we would become great enemies thus causing constant wars between countries every so often. And if we send aid and one day we go to war we can turn to those countries we aided for their support and aid.
I agree with James Shikwati.
If you look at successful aid programs, such as the tsunami relief work performed by mercy corps versus unsuccessful aid programs like food for Africa, the difference is as follows:
Mercy Corps provided a team of specialist to show tsunami survivors how to cope with the destruction and make order out of chaos. The money was loaned to applicants who could prove that they had a viable plan with a good chance of success before they were granted or loaned money. There were no direct giveaways, no freebies. Money donated to Mercy Corp did not get just given away, it was earned either by the development of a financial plan or by physical labor. In such a way it did not undercut the local market, it boosted it by funding those people who demonstrated the abilities necessary to succeed.
Africa is just the opposite. The food isn't even given to the people it is given to politicians. If the food was given orloaned to individuals, it still would have a negative impact, but at least the people most in need would get it. Those with money to buy food would still have to buy on the open market. By placing the free food directly on the market, well, from the article we can understand quite clearly what is happening.
Today's news is relevant to the discussion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4786780.stm
In particular:
| Quote: |
Differences over agricultural subsidies have stalled global trade talks.
Developing countries want rich nations to lower farming subsidies, but the US and the EU insist that poor nations must open their markets to more non-agricultural goods. |
Biodiesel: Since when was aid to Africa not given as a loan? That is already how "aid" is given. It's what the World Bank and IMF do. In fact, according to the World Bank, poor countries pay back as much as 13 times more interest on their loans than they are given outright as grants. Since 1970 the poorest countries have even paid back more on their loans (in absolute terms) than they have received.
smalls: There are many more where neo-liberal economic policies have destroyed the economies. Look at what happened to Argentina, who went from one of the richest countries in the world to defaulting on their loans and having their currency devalued, or countries like the Philippines, Indonesia or Jamaica who lag behind their more protective counterparts. In any case I have a moral problem with sweatshops, just the same as I have a moral problem with child labour and slavery. I have read the article and do not agree with all of Mr. Shikwati’s assertions. Though all philanthropic and humanitarian aid needs to be guarded against misappropriations, fraud, graft and corruption, I would not extrapolate that cautiousness to the extent that it denies the value of effective redistribution of wealth, food, water, medicine or raw materials to areas where it is needed. After all, isn’t that what most countries do internally when disaster strikes. Don’t they redistribute resources from one area that has surplus to another area of the country that has needs? The principle ought not to be different “externally” from one global region to another. The issue is not that it’s wrong to send aid, the issue is “management” of the aid. Spiegel said,
SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn't do anything, the people would starve.
Shikwati: I don't think so.
We know Mr. Shikwati’s response is disingenuous. The global community has witnessed far too many instances where thousands of people died, and for years at a time, when aid was not able to reach the people in time (for whatever reason, political, logistical, etc.). According to Mr. Shikwati, these people should not have died, but they did.
Frankly, I am leery of Mr. Shikwati’s “one-sided” argument. The discussion should be more intellectually balanced and objective. I think a more intelligent discussion of the problem would have delineated when aid is appropriate, and under what circumstances, and when aid is not appropriate. But the discussion was not a fair and honest examination of the subject from all sides.
As several of the respondent aptly noted above, aid that “feeds” dependency needs to be examined more closely, while aid that builds infrastructure, promotes education and grows entrepreneurship might prove to offer greater effectiveness and legitimacy.
People are still starving despite our aid. But they can't grow their own crops because they have no seed to plant. If we really wanted to help, we'd help them grow their own food as well as give them actual food. Only by enabling African countries to have access to clean water, renewable food resources, basic health care, and education will we see a reversal to the sad trend and cycle of conflict and death.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime. If we really want to help, we won't have to stop giving aid altogether--we need to supplement it with seed, equipment, and expertise to enable some modicum of self-suffiency.
On a side note, Bush's "abstinence only" education policies mean the government will no longer allow their money to go to providing condoms for Africans who want them. Which means AIDS will only get worse, not better. The best treatment for an epidemic is too prevent it from spreading, and we just stopped helping.
It sounds like things are a mess in Africa. I think that if we are able to help, then we should. But how much are we really helping? I mean, maybe we're hurting the farmers, but if we stop sending food, then I'm sure many people would go without. It might boost sales for the farmers, but only because those who can afford it will buy.
As for the manipulative politicians, we can't go in and monitor their actions or dictate how to run things. It's a dumb analogy, but it makes me think of a pinata. All of the big, dominant kids will take all the good stuff for themselves while the shy, passive kids will go without, no matter how much they may want that candy. I know, kind of a dumb comparison.
I don't know that we've created the problem, but it seems like we can't stop sending aid at this point.
I'd also like to see more information about the AIDS situation in Africa. The guy in the article mentioned that it's blown way out of proportion, but how much? How big is the problem really?
This article is quite interesting because it raises the question about quality help.
| cjtucker wrote: |
It sounds like things are a mess in Africa. I think that if we are able to help, then we should. But how much are we really helping? I mean, maybe we're hurting the farmers, but if we stop sending food, then I'm sure many people would go without. It might boost sales for the farmers, but only because those who can afford it will buy.
As for the manipulative politicians, we can't go in and monitor their actions or dictate how to run things. It's a dumb analogy, but it makes me think of a pinata. All of the big, dominant kids will take all the good stuff for themselves while the shy, passive kids will go without, no matter how much they may want that candy. I know, kind of a dumb comparison.
I don't know that we've created the problem, but it seems like we can't stop sending aid at this point.
I'd also like to see more information about the AIDS situation in Africa. The guy in the article mentioned that it's blown way out of proportion, but how much? How big is the problem really? |
I don't know what to think about it all, in my opinion i see commercials asking people for money to help out people in africa, but now 30 years later nothing changed really, it only got worse.. They really don't want to be helped, just holding up their hands and get feed like animals, people always show bizarre commercials and documetaires about africa, but never show the beautyful side cuz that's also africa.
We only hear about wars and starvation, but why is that?? I think it's the governments are playing games with everybody and pointing fingers to others.
Wars in oilcountries.. why is that do you think? I think its a bit odd that when bush his daddy was president there was war in the gulf, and this time his son is also involved in iraq also an oil country.. so maybe it's all personal family business with the Bushes cuz they are in oil business!
But hé thats what i think, i have freedom of speech right?
Not africa needs help, but the whole world needs help! Too many corrupt governments.It makes absolutely not sense for this guy to tell people to stop sending aid to Africa. There are literally millions there that are so poor and underpriveleged that even suggesting the idea that they don't need money is beyond ludicrous.
SEND MONEY TO AFRICA JUST TO SPITE THIS IGNORANT A-HOLE!!!!!
I really don't see why they have to be so darn "proud" over themselves, they know that they can't handle their own economics as they just spend it on stuff like weapons instead of buying food for their own people.
Someone should really go over there and have a good talk with the leader, just to try to explain thathe needs to spend money or other stuff than weapons, i.e. food, roads, factories(That doesn't create weapons!).
Just my opinion
Signed,
Qwerty
This is what my grandad says! all the time soooo anoying!
It's interesting. It would probably be better to use the money to build hospitals and the like than to just give money to the corrupt systems the article talks about.
Well, I've always heard about some instances where the aid money is kept by some of the governments and not used to help the people it was intended for.
Hell if the guy is credible I don't see why it wouldn't be a good idea to use that money to help people somewhere else.
we have so many issues in out own country, how is it that we continue to help others, it just seems completly un reasinable. the war is constantly growing in expenses and we could definatly use that money to help our troops in the mid east. the media does not broadcast it enough. men out there die everyday but i barely see and recognition for them, its absoluty rediculous
After reading the artiicle I must say that I agree with Shikwati that help does more bad than good, so I'll reconsider to give money next time some organisation will try it to collect for them.
| psihich wrote: |
| I'll reconsider to give money next time some organisation will try it to collect for them. |
To quote Dire Straits:
| Quote: |
| Right becomes the wrong and left becomes the right. |
I don't belive that the aid itself is the problem. Africa, like any trouble spot in the history of the world, is a complex situation. There is no one problem or one solution. However, specifically and only looking at the aid situation, a number of areas of aid are nessicary. Our aid is being applied in the wrong areas.
1: Certain areas in africa need stablisation. The UN needs to be supplied adequatly, particularly in areas like the former Zaire. This will help maintain stability so that a recovery can begin. In the meantime, the food can be delivered to the people themselves, as with the lack of a stable government many countries in the region are simply unable to deliver the food adequatly.
2: For the areas with stable government, there are a number of thing that will help. Stop sending food aid, let them buy that on the open market. A substantial about of money flows out of africa in the form of debt payments. That debt needs to be forgiven.
3: The aid africa desperatly needs is in stuff the continent is unable to provide adequatly for itself. This means infastructure construction by first-world contractors, paid for by the said first-world governments. This particularly referrs to the medical and education infastructure. Also, security needs to be provided to combat corruption. Police forces need to be better trained and equipped. A program where the most promising police and army people would be sent to the US to train with the FBI at Quantico, or the US Army at West Point, would be benificial to both countries.
The man has a point. But I don't think that the US and European government should totally stop giving aids but instead teach them as well how to make a living. Aid is not just giving money or food, it can also be in a form of trainings and education. If corruption is the problem then I think there are still ways to combat that, I'm just not sure how 
True, I belive it would be politically impossible for any administration to cut food aid, it would be torn up by the opposition.
My post implies what would be best for Africa IMO, not what would be acceptible politically | pecad0re wrote: |
| I think that guy is crazy. If we all stopped sending aid to Africa, all those people would die with desease and hunger. He must be going nuts to be honest, i mean, i bet if he actually lived in Africa he wouldnt post on this forum saying "stop sending aid to us". In fact he wouldnt even have internet...not even a computer. I reckon we should evacuate poor countries in Africa and send everyone to more developed countries able to offer "the minimum" conditions for human life. |
I think you have a wrong ideia about Africa, i don´t live in Africa but of course they have PC´s and internet, at least the richs, whom by the way are VERY rich.
And AIDING Africa stops the economic circle of the whole continent, if the developed countries really want to help, invest in their industry or things like that, but sending finished products crashs Africa´s economy that is very fragile.africa needs help
they are poor
and i million dollars
not expensive for u to send to the poors
| pecad0re wrote: |
| I reckon we should evacuate poor countries in Africa and send everyone to more developed countries able to offer "the minimum" conditions for human life. |
Man what's this idea? Would you like to be moved tomorrow on the basis that some things you do are not tolerable? Improve the situation there! The last time we moved a population on earth, we created the Israelo-palestinian conflict. | Soltair wrote: |
| The last time we moved a population on earth, we created the Israelo-palestinian conflict. |
An excellent point. Also, you try finding the logistical power to relocate half of a billion people. BEsides, there are other things in africa, things that are quite valuble, particularly hydrocarbons and minerals. Would you like to see gas prices rise substantially because some idiot decicded to evacuate africa?
Then you get to the point where you have to wonder where the heck youre gonna move everyone. Anywhere you move half a billion people will cause a conflict on amuch greater scale than the current one in israel. Nobody has the infastructure to support an instant influx of a half a billion people. | mathiaus wrote: |
Mostly very true. Shame really these corrupt people are in power. Its these people that mean we have to keep giving aid. Currently if we were to stop they would charge higher taxes to get more money for themselfs. If the aid we gave was not to the countries but to charities who gave to those who needed the stuff sent out then those who colud afford it would have to buy them locally still so the markets wouldnt be affected.
Ideally, we could just remove the corrupt leaders and then Africa really could sort out all it's proplems itself. Still a bit of help never hurt anyone. We could sort out aids for them and they do everything else. that would speed things up. |
We remove those corrupt people in power and someone possibly more corrupt will take power. We took out Saddam (and I know it takes time to reconstruct that country) but what good did that do in the short term (5-10 years)? Iraq is about to fall into civil war. His people feared him and that fear kept them from the civil war. I am not saying this is a good thing but Saddam was a necessary evil. Do we have our soldiers staying (and dying) over there doing what Saddam did? Strike fear in the hearts of the people? The saying is that you must win the hearts and minds of your enemy, but love and respect is are not things they are used to. They are used to hate and fear unfortunately.
Also a side note (this may be off topic): but Iraqis call us insurgents because we are merely there trying to hand things over to them and ensure we have oil supply contracts setup. They call our soldiers infidels because most do not believe in Islam. But what about the millions of Islamics that live here in the USA? Should we consider that an insurgency?
Can't we all just get along???I think Africa is like any where else on the planet: some places are well off, others are drastically underprivileged and desperately require assistance.
If the entire planet donated a percentile of the money that is spent on 'household pets' to the underprivileged, the world would be a far better place.
Africa badly needs our help not only finaces but also through human resources. They urgently need good doctors, teachers, other professionals. All the well meaing persons should keep Africa in their prayers and help them whenever possible and in what manner they can.
Another example of course of all the money that's coming from tax payers!
| Elephantman wrote: |
| Another example of course of all the money that's coming from tax payers! |
*Blink* What? Are you implying that tax-payers are more generous? Or that tax-payers pay for government bugets? How is that relevant? 
| benstewart wrote: |
| I think Africa is like any where else on the planet: some places are well off, others are drastically underprivileged and desperately require assistance. |
Perfectly true. Look at places like Botswana and Morocco, and then compare them to the former Zaire and Mozambique. There is a dramatic difference in prosperity level. Kenya's somewhere in-between.look im agree with the african economy, look here in Honduras the people used to be so worker, now, in almost all the towns of the country the people doesnt work, because them wait all the month the money for them relatives in USA, i think that is not good, because is shame that our people is not working them are making worms.
I agree with James Shikwati. It has always been the case that long term support actually disables a person's ability to do for themselves. This translates evenly to an entire population. Looking at entitlement plans in the United States is a good example. Thousands of people in the Katrina huricane zone were affected. However, those in the entitlement zone of New Orleans were devastated beyond what could bare. It was because of long term entitlement that they were predisposed to hand-outs and unable to cope with the disaster on the terms they needed to. Had they been weened off the goverment programs and enabled through education, (for example), they would be able to support themselves and be better equiped to do for themselves when help was not able to reach them.
I'm not heartless by any means. As a matter of fact I would love to help somebody to help themselves; but I can never give something for no effort. I believe in investing in people's ambition win, lose, or draw; at least by helping somebody to help themselves they are able to grow, if not succeed.
I think stopping aid will result in too many deaths, instead the countries wanting to help the country should buy food/clothes in the reigon so the economy won't die and there will be competition which will allow a better economy. It sounds that only a few extra resources are needed to sustain the country, and I think they can do it themselves.
Help is always welcome. It all depends on the interests of the helper towards the helpee.
In politics, communication between countries is often very basic. Although the representatives at the level of foreign politics are ususally highly educated and instructed, the communication between countries seems often very animal: "Give me your oil, or I will beat you"
For such big problematics like helping other people at a nation's level, one always have to think about the benefits or return on investment that a country can get when it provides help for another.
As long as politics is driven on a short time-scale, which is related to the shortness of electoral mandates (4 years for a president in the USA for instance) I do not believe i help between countries that would be based on real will of helping. It always have to be related to more practical reasons.
I think that they have made it that way because they got into that much debt but we should still help 
them !!! I agree with Mr. Atkinson, the major problem here isn't the aid, it's the huge amounts of debt in Africa.
Perhaps this is a problem?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4746874.stm
Shell was ordered to pay compensation to the Ijaw people, but did not do so. That has led to a number of attacks.
| Quote: |
| A Nigerian court has ordered oil giant Shell and its partners to pay $1.5bn to the Ijaw people of the Delta region. The Ijaw have been fighting since 2000 for compensation for environmental degradation in the oil-rich region. They took the case to court after Shell refused to make the payment ordered by Nigeria's parliament. |
Many African countries have resources such as oil and diamonds, but the profits are often going to Western companies and not benefitting the local people. If they try and get a larger share of the profits, foreign governments will intervene to protect economic interests. I'm thinking of Hawaii around the turn of the century, as well as the wars that were to the benifit of the former United Fruit Company at about the same time. (honduras, i think, late 1880s or 1890s... been a few years since i studied this | benwhite wrote: |
People are still starving despite our aid. But they can't grow their own crops because they have no seed to plant. If we really wanted to help, we'd help them grow their own food as well as give them actual food. Only by enabling African countries to have access to clean water, renewable food resources, basic health care, and education will we see a reversal to the sad trend and cycle of conflict and death.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime. If we really want to help, we won't have to stop giving aid altogether--we need to supplement it with seed, equipment, and expertise to enable some modicum of self-suffiency. |
Hi Benwhite,
You've made a rational argument. In line with your position, you might want to read the full article linked the the URL below. It begins...
"Forced out of Zimbabwe by President Robert Mugabe's infamous land reform program, a group of white farmers is taking advantage of a second chance in Nigeria. It's an experiment in helping Nigeria to feed itself..."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5288362
Providing seed, equipment and education (as the former Zimbabwe farmers are now doing in Nigeria) is a convencing position to take.Everyone needs to do a search on "sudan" and then you'll see why we need to help Africa. About 2 million people have died. I think it's www.darfurgenocide.org There's some pretty nasty pictures there of what the Janjaweed have been doing to the black Sudanese. I really know my stuff on this subject. I just wrote a paper in Global Issues to my congressman. It's a really good paper, and I was thinking of attatching it, until I realized that it says my hometown & population of it...so then any average joe could figure out where I lived....I'm not that stupid. And I know that the paper doesn't flow as well without the statistic that has to do with my hometown. The situation is horrible. I was originally against sending anyone to Sudan (basically because America can't help everyone) but then the entire class was assigned to write a letter to our congressman about why we should help the Sudanese. My paper was so good that it convinced me. Plus this quote by Bette Midler, that I'm probably butchering because it's by memory. It goes something like this: "We're all connected because we're all the same race: human." I really did butcher that quote. When she said it, it was really intelligent and caring sounding. I encourage you to look up more about the genocide in Sudan before you make your opinion. It's like saying that Yale is full of idiots, when you've never been there before, and know nothing about it. (That was just an analogy...I've never been there....just worked with the analogy) Yes, you are right, but that's the big problem of this world.
We have different goals.
The one wants to make money and the other will survive.
Those people doesn't care about the others but only about themselves.
And that's the big problem, if we all care first about anybody else before we care about our ourselves the world would be a lot nicer.
But I'm not the first who have said that, I completly understand that.
But that's how I think about this subject.
I think we should keep sending aid to africa because we can deffinatley afford it and they deffinatley need it. In fact my High School is addopting a school in africa to send supplies and donations to.
This article echos what I have thought for years. I beleive that if we stop sending aid to these countries it would force them to try and survive on their own rather than relying on another entity to provide for them.
In addition to the above I think that the money that we are sending over there isn't making it to the people that really need it. Instead the money is going right into the pockets of the politicians over there. Which in turn causes those same politicans to worsen the conditions of the people so that other countries will send more money over to them
i am sorry but i have to disagree with you.
I just love it when ''new blood'' comes out and speaks its mind.
And the guy might actually have a point.
By saying what he said he made it clear that he has nothing to benefit from that statement.
I for one believe him.
i dont have anything to backup whats he claims but it is an interesting approach and i dont think that if any of us knew that the money really goes to some old politician's already filled pockets we would speak differently about aid their.
Well the guy got a good, point but i do not agree with him 100%, and as said many times before, economic strategys mostly hold on the storyboard level, but it wont hold in reality. Very few economic strategys ever holds in reality, and i do not believe that this one will.
| Quote: |
| i dont have anything to backup whats he claims |
Well this is a very vague argument I believe. I realy dont understand their logic.
Last week I read in the belgian newspaper that Ethiopia doesnt accept second hand imported goods.
A charity sent second hand toys for children in need, but the authorities didnt accept. So the goods had to be shipped to another country.
Who is the victim ? ?
The poor.. again
Now see, stuff like that is one of the problems with many of these african countries. Therer were a number of african countries that I seem to remember witholding grain because it was genetically engineered to be pest and drought resistent (Sorry, this was from a WSJ article a few years ago, don't have exact info or source to link to).
There are 50+ countries in Africa, with a lot of different circumstances. Some receive a lot of aid, some receive little or none. Most of the extreme poverty is caused by war, not corruption. I agree with the economist that a lot of aid is counterproductive, especially food aid, donated clothes and similar. If Africa should receive aid, it should be in the form of help in building infrastructure (especially electrification), and scholarships for higher education and technical and business training. Rather than aid, though, Africa needs investment. Before glasnost, there used to be a reasonable amount of investment in Africa, and most economies were growing healthily. After glasnost, investors became hugely excited about Russia and Eastern Europe, and lost interest in Africa. And in the 1990s, China became the place to put your money. This has harmed African economic growth.
Bruce,
Finally...someone understands a little basic economics. It's refreshing to have rational voice like yours around.
It's really pretty simple; aid is fine if it will boost their economies (infrastructure, investment in local companies). Aid is counterproductive when it competes with (or nullifies) local markets.
Hie folks,
I just joined this thread and to be honest I didn't read all messages.
What I think about aiding African countries is the folowing:
Most of the money goes to corrupts politicians and to their friends, most food and products help is exactly the same.
How many of you remenber Live Aid? the first one?
How many of you remenber that some of the food sent there just spoiled on the ships because the workers refused to work overtime to unload it?
How many of you remenber that most of the help couldn't get distributed because the government didn´t authorize the import of new tires for the trucks?
I think that help shouldn't be in money, it should be in products to reduce the imediate problems and then in education, technology, fair trade, etc...
But mostly education.
The people is hungry and is in need of help but most governments in Africa just want to get a belly full for themselves.
I live in Portugal, and once I had, in 1988, to make some work to one of the houses that "Coronel" Didi Amin had here. It was some kind of Beverly Hill mansion, it was is particular one, the others he had were for rent.
It was the most luxurous mansion I had ever seen, I couldn't see much because I got a reprehension for using the front door. I should have used the employees door.
I think he was the self proclamed president of Zaire.
No Idi Amin was from Uganda. A guy who really drove his country down. And that's the problem with africa - too many leaders like that.
There is no simple solution. One can't say stop sending aid because some people simply need it. The wars and conflicts prevent aid reaching those who need it. The aid just becomes a bargaining chip - something that gives one side leverage over the other. The first step would obviously be solving these conflicts. But the problem is that some of these conflicts have been going on for so long that I am sure some people don't even know what they are fighting for anymore. what do you do then? I don't know. But what you don't do is give up. You try to help where you can and hope for the best.
One would hope that these conflicts are evolutionary in a way - almost like getting something out of your system - like the american civil war. Then afterwards there can be a lasting peace. I know its a heartless way of putting it given how many people get hacked apart and die each day. But I hope the warlords and governments will either finally just get fed up with fighting or come to their senses and end all this foolishness!
The point in which most of the people participating here seem to agree on is the fact tht just keeping on doing what we're doing is not going to fix africa all by itself. We need to do something different, and the sooner, the better.
The black people who would protest are the same ones who are used to getting something for nothing here at home (in the US).
| CompactHaven wrote: |
If we cut off aid to Africa, you seriously don't think black people would be protesting in the streets?
I know they understand the concept, but I think it would be far to controversial. |
| zluis wrote: |
I live in Portugal, and once I had, in 1988, to make some work to one of the houses that "Coronel" Didi Amin had here. It was some kind of Beverly Hill mansion, it was is particular one, the others he had were for rent.
It was the most luxurous mansion I had ever seen, I couldn't see much because I got a reprehension for using the front door. I should have used the employees door.
I think he was the self proclamed president of Zaire. |
That wasn't Idi Amin. That was Mobutu Sese Seko. He and his friends and relativves robbed the Zairean treasury dry, making himself one of the richest people in the world in the mean time. It is worth remembering, though, that before him, the Belgian royal family did exactly the same thing, only more brutally. If you visit Brussels, you will see big palaces and museums that were built by robbing and murdering Zaireans. You could read Joseph Conrad's novel "The Heart of Darkness" to get a picture of how corrupt and evil they were. | lyndonray wrote: |
| No Idi Amin was from Uganda. A guy who really drove his country down. And that's the problem with africa - too many leaders like that. |
Too many, but not as many as you probably think. The majority of rulers in Africa have been reasonable.
| lyndonray wrote: |
| The aid just becomes a bargaining chip - something that gives one side leverage over the other. |
Mainly, it's a lever that rich countries use to control poor countries: "You back us at the UN, or we won't give you any aid next year", that kind of thing.
| lyndonray wrote: |
| The first step would obviously be solving these conflicts. But the problem is that some of these conflicts have been going on for so long that I am sure some people don't even know what they are fighting for anymore. |
I don't think that's true. Which specific conflicts are you thinking of?
| lyndonray wrote: |
| But I hope the warlords and governments will either finally just get fed up with fighting or come to their senses and end all this foolishness! |
That happened in some countries. Nigeria has avoided war since 1970 simply because the people can't stomach the idea, and the war in Angola ended when Savimbi died because his supporters were just fed up with fighting (and because the US and USSR were no longer backing each side).
The main underlying reason for rumbling wars in Africa is not that people just like fighting, but rather that many states are not strong enough to suppress insurgency. Any idiot with a few kalashnikovs can start a war in certain parts of Africa, whereas if they tried it in the developed world, they would be wiped out instantly. There's no way the Lord's Resistance Army would last a fortnight in the US, let alone nearly 20 years, as it has done in Uganda.Hie,
First I want to apologize, it was Mobutu's house I was to.
It wasn' Didi's. But I'm sure he must have had one just as big and luxuous as the one I saw.
I'm sure that there must be honest politicians in Africa. I don't know how many, I guess the average of good politicians must be more or less the same as in any other country (about 0.00005%).
The main problem is that in Africa the poverty is so huge that to see big fat politicians is much more revolting. Here for example you may drive a volkwagen and the politician drives a mercedes, but there you only eat half a potatoe per week with half a glass of muddy water (if you'r lucky) and your president eats caviar with Dom Perignon at breakfast with a bunch of his friends.
It is revolting, and knowing that the caviar and the campanhe is bought with the money we sent for humanitarian help is even more revolting.
Idi Amin lived in Uganda until he was overthrown and exiled to Saudi Arabia. In Saudi, he lived in a nice house -- given to him by the Saudi government, because he didn't have any money -- but it wasn't an ultra-luxurious palace like Mobutu's. Amin was not a big-scale thief like Mobutu. Rather, the problem with him was that he was too authoritarian. He had the unfortunate habit of killing anyone who opposed him or criticized him.
| zluis wrote: |
| The main problem is that in Africa the poverty is so huge that to see big fat politicians is much more revolting. Here for example you may drive a volkwagen and the politician drives a mercedes, but there you only eat half a potatoe per week with half a glass of muddy water (if you'r lucky) and your president eats caviar with Dom Perignon at breakfast with a bunch of his friends. |
What about Western aid workers and diplomats and contractors, who go there and live the high life, with cooks and maids and gardeners and drivers, and all their food imported especially, and they are driven around in big luxury jeeps bought with aid money, when most of them couldn't enjoy that standard of life at home -- aren't they at least as disgusting as the politicians?
| Quote: |
| It is revolting, and knowing that the caviar and the campanhe is bought with the money we sent for humanitarian help is even more revolting. |
Meanwhile, American crooks (many of them connected to the US government) have stolen between $22bn and $28bn in Iraq in just two years. It's probably the biggest corruption scandal in the world right now, and the US government is just ignoring the problem. The hypocrisy of that is truly, deeply revolting. The article makes a lot of sense. However I don't think it applies in all cases. For example, for one off natural disasters (like earthquake or tidal wave) aid is crucial.
However, some countries seem to have very regular natural disasters which are far from "natural". For example, droughts caused by poor farming practices. This should not be encouraged by sending aid.
In general, I think the article is an extreme point of view (but maybe it needs to be extreme to balance the lopsidedness of public opinion). I would say that denying aid to some African nations is like saying "don't feed a baby it can look after to itself". But others have been living at home for much too long and it is time they were allowed to fend for themselves.
BTW The main purpose of aid is to assuage personal feelings of helplessnes and guilt at the plight of others.
I think that all kinds of corruptions should be banned.
I know that contractors are going to Africa to get richer quicker than at home. This week we had a Portuguese mission to Angola with that purpose.
We should export our know how but based on fair trade, not on exploitation.
I believe that most african countries are being more robed and exploited now than they were during colonization time. I'm not defending colonization, but I keep talking with peole who went to Angola two or three years ago and keep saying that they lived like kings, earning 4 or 5 times what they earned here.
Once I read an article about an African country that was self suficient in cocoa production. In spite of having, what we "Smart Guys", call primitive agriculture.
So the government went abroad contracting the "best" specialists they could find to increase cocoa production so they could export it.
Well cutting the story short, they were never able to be self suficient any more and had to start importing cocoa...
The rigth way to deal with others need is not easy. Most of the time people don't need money, hey need guidance to avoid mistakes that will hurt them on the long run. They need that people who understand and respect their culture and ways of live to show them some "tricks" that would help them live better. I don't believe that every African needs to have a laptop and an Internet connection to be happy and avoid famine.
Maybe a bag of better seeds and the knowledge of how to care for them would be more eficient, and would save everybody a lot of money and lives.
But then it would mean that people would have a better live, and even maybe a better education, but would a more educated country allow so much corruption?
Well, in my opinion, if american voted for Bush and us Portugueses voted for Socrates, then beeing educated doesn´t mean anything about choosing better options for governments.
I believe that most time rulers are afraid of education, they are afraid that if the street guy gets too smart, politicians could no longer be incompetent and corrupt. And that's a risk that they are not willing to make.
I am a South African, and I have also lived in a former Soviet Country. A few months ago I enquired about a stand at the airport and was told that I would pay x amount, while a black person would pay half that amount. The theory is that by charging him less, who would have a better start. This is simply not true.
In the former Soviet countries, no one gave them handouts. They had to start with nothing and build from nothing without help from anyone. There was no true credit as we know it either - only loan sharks, friends and of course, hard work.
Today many of these people are very successful. In Africa on the other hand, new businessmen are not as successful, the failure rate is higher, and more people expect handouts, almost as a right.
With this kind of thinking (and behaviour), people will never become free and independent in the true sense, and they will always rely on others to help them as soon as they get into trouble, rather than finding solutions to their problems.
-Give a starving man a fish and he will survive today, teach him how to fish and he won't starve anymore- that's what old master Confucius said 2000 years ago.
What's happening now with the aid chains is that.
we are just changing their economic rural balance and pushing them in a hole by sending just material goods and not so much knowledge.
Moreover as the guy says in the article, we don't know who is going to use that money or those goods we send.
Many serious economists in the western world think the same as him.
http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/20/566683 It's this simple to me: people are hungry, give them food.
Yes, simple minds are the cause of the problem. Haven't you read any of this? Giving food is making the situation worse - not better.
Africa needs investment in its people who are willing and able to develop a business. Like digging wells or building grain sheds.
Currently, no one will build a grain shed. Grain sheds are used to store surplus grain for times of need. So why don't they build them?
We'll, since they haven't built any grain sheds the world sends them food. Then to buy the grain given by the world, they sell farm equipment. Now what?
One this thread, there have been two arguments against stopping food aid.
1. If we stop people will starve so I don't agree.
2. I understand the economics of all this but but I've been to Africa and if you where ever there your heart would hurt. They don't even have the necessities!
OK folks, what are you saying with these two arguments? People ARE starving! One of the reasons they are starving is that we send them food.
What would you want in this situation? Food enough to feed you village for a week, or a well dug? Food for your family for a week of a hoe? Note: in this example you don't actually get the food. It first goes through the local bureaucracy to finance the local war lord who took all your sons and raped all your daughters last year. Then you get some amount of it but only if you vote for this fellow or that fellow.
They need investment.
| missdixy wrote: |
| It's this simple to me: people are hungry, give them food. |
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Yes, simple minds are the cause of the problem. Haven't you read any of this? Giving food is making the situation worse - not better. |
I think that both opinions are extreme.
1) Yes, things are simple. Nothing is for free in this world. Only those unable/handicapped should be helped (though not as a RIGHT as some of them DEMAND but as a gesture of goodwill from the group/community to the needy individual). Also the poor have the nasty habit of multiplying like rabbits. So if you feed one today you will have three to feed next year.
2) Small aids are necessary in case of natural disasters. Only continuous aid is harmful.
3) Too much generalization is not good. "Africa is poor" is a cliche as is America is rich. Yes many countries are poor but there are regions in Africa (as in South Africa) richer than regions in the USA. Also North Africa is not as poor as Central Africa.
My conclusions:
-First and foremost FAMILY PLANNING
-Help should be provided for needy individuals not for countries and only as a temporary measure
-Capitalism and free markets are the economic solution (after a few decades of Wild West capitalism the situation will stabilize by itself). Let the greedy imperialists exploit the mineral resources but tax them accordingly.
-Unfortunately the climate/weather seems to be unfavorable to economic development.Wow, dredging up old topic.
| Quote: |
| Unfortunately the climate/weather seems to be unfavorable to economic development. |
Not necessarily true. Doesn't seem to have stopped Phoenix, Las Vegas, Perth, or Santiago, why should it stop Africa? 
You're all missing the point. He's saying that when the west sends aid (agricultural products, clothing, etc.), it depresses the market for those things in the Kenya (and other African nations). It's a basic economic priciple. When free grain is sent into the country, then the locals who farm it can't sell their own (who would buy it when you can get it free from the Americans?). When free clothes are sent into the country the tailors can't sell their clothing. This creates a cycle that keeps entrepreneurs from starting new businesses. Every country that has ever gone from poor to rich has done so by creating their own economy (South Korea, Singapore), by trading with other countries. No country in the history of the world has ever created a successful economy by accepting aid. On top of all this, a vast majority of the aid goes into the pockets of the corrupt politicians. None of this is at all surprising to economists. They have been saying this for decades. The problem is that most of the world doesn't understand this process, so politicians can't get votes by declining to give or receive aid.
It's very egotistic for westerners to claim that Africans wouldn't survive without them
I'm all for it. They need to take care of the American's that are homeless here and going hungry before they help anyone else outside the country.
| rheanna wrote: |
| I'm all for it. They need to take care of the American's that are homeless here and going hungry before they help anyone else outside the country. |
I think there are other places that money for aid can be taken from - the insane amounts of money, for example, that gets spent on guns, bombs and tanks to fight land wars overseas - away from aid to countries, many of whom are quite reliant on it.
I think that if the people and government of Kenya genuinely want foreign countries to stop sending aid and money, then others should at least try to heed their wishes. If this is the view of just on economist, however, then I think it's fair to say that is isn't representative of most people's views. | suntzu3500 wrote: |
Wow, dredging up old topic.
| Quote: | | Unfortunately the climate/weather seems to be unfavorable to economic development. |
Not necessarily true. Doesn't seem to have stopped Phoenix, Las Vegas, Perth, or Santiago, why should it stop Africa? |
YES, it's true. Tropical weather (hot and WET) disfavors economic development.
You can see climate types in Africa here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/ClimateMapWorld.jpg
Most of Africa has one of 2 climate types: arid (Sahara desert) and tropical.
Your last 2 examples have Mediterranean climate!!! Mediterranean means it's a very good place to live and work. Who was favored by this climate? oh, yea, THE ROMAN EMPIRE!!! 
As regards the other 2 examples, none has a tropical climate and both expanded in the second half of the 20th century in an already developed country.
Phoenix
"Phoenix has an arid climate"
population:
1950: 160,818
2000: 1,321,045
explanation: U.S. military training, production and distribution center
Las Vegas
"Las Vegas' climate is an arid desert climate"
population:
1950: 24,624
2005: 545,147 (metropolitan area 1,777,539)
explanation: gaming industry
"Perth's climate is a classic example of a Mediterranean climate" => wrong example
"Santiago has a mild Mediterranean climate" => wrong example
As regards the "old topic" of influence of climate on man: take a map and look for economic developed countries then see that ALL are in the temperate climate zone! Some people don't get it! | Mr_CEO wrote: |
You're all missing the point.
|
Fortunately, you enlightened us!
| Quote: |
He's saying that when the west sends aid (agricultural products, clothing, etc.), it depresses the market for those things in the Kenya (and other African nations). It's a basic economic priciple. When free grain is sent into the country, then the locals who farm it can't sell their own |
FYI, products are sent only as EMERGENCY AID (only 10% of the total aid, but there are countries where this reaches 30%). That means many people are starving.... and yes the few local products are super-overpriced! ...and yes distribution is chaotic! Those who got more of course will sell the surplus because of the high prices! Human nature!
On the other hand, canceling debts represents 25% of the total aid (for some countries surpasses 50% of the total aid). You can see here the structure of the economic aid by country: http://www.oecd.org/countrylist/0,3349,en_2649_34447_25602317_1_1_1_1,00.html
| Quote: |
| (who would buy it when you can get it free from the Americans?). |
Europeans are the biggest donors (65% of total aid, US 25%). And a third of US aid goes to Iraq and Afghanistan. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/30/1860571.gif
| Quote: |
When free clothes are sent into the country the tailors can't sell their clothing. This creates a cycle that keeps entrepreneurs from starting new businesses. |
Total aberration. Only private charities send "western" clothes but they are insignificant.
| Quote: |
On top of all this, a vast majority of the aid goes into the pockets of the corrupt politicians.
|
Stereotypes never die! "vast majority" !?? you watched too many movies!
| Quote: |
It's very egotistic for westerners to claim that Africans wouldn't survive without them( |
Do you know how many African children die from starvation?
http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/GMIS/gdmis.do?siteId=2&goalId=8&menuId=LNAV01GOAL4
Of course, MANY people will not die. But consider this: life expectancy is around 50 (as opposed to around 80 in the developed countries).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Life_expectancy_world_map.PNG
