Foreign aid - good or evil?

[Carpe Coma]

It certainly is not the obligation of the rich countries to help the poor monetarily, unless the rich county is at fault for the state of the poor country. On the flip side, it is generally wise to "aid" in the development of impoverished economies.

almost all monetary foreign aid is just positively spun bribery and is rarely in amount large to make a serious difference in the receiving country. It is entirely possible that foreign aid can prop up bad governments, especially military dictatorships.

Most non-monetary aid just prolongs bad situations. The aid is either "requisitioned" by the government or helps keep the population content enough not to revolt en masse against the situation.

The only positive cases of aid are of limited duration or infrastructure improvements.

[MMI]

It certainly is not the obligation of the rich countries to help the poor monetarily, unless the rich county is at fault for the state of the poor country

No legal obligation, but a moral one, surely. Does no-one have a duty to look after the poor? It's not their fault they are poor, any more than it's ours that we are rich - and by comparison, we are all loaded. We might think we earned our fortunes, but, by and large, we were born into it - or at least, born in a wealthy country where comfortable living is taken for granted.

I propose the wealthiest nation in the world should adopt the poorest nation in the world and share both nations' wealth equally; the 2nd wealthiest adopt the 2nd poorest and so on. And when that cycle's completed, if there is still a huge disparity, to do the same thing over again.

But it's just a dream ...

[Carpe Coma]

No legal obligation, but a moral one, surely. Does no-one have a duty to look after the poor? It's not their fault they are poor, any more than it's ours that we are rich - and by comparison, we are all loaded. We might think we earned our fortunes, but, by and large, we were born into it - or at least, born in a wealthy country where comfortable living is taken for granted.

No, no one has a moral duty to look after the poor just because they are poor. The instant that it becomes a duty, charity starts to just perpetuate the problem as it removes the downside risk to behavior. I'm not saying that it is a bad idea, but charity can not be treated as a duty, else it will become abused.

It is correct that it isn't their fault on an individual case. That doesn't change that perpetual foreign aid, the way it is done by governments, only perpetuates the poverty. Which is why I said that the focus should be on economic and infrastructure improvements and not throwing money at the problem.

My problem with Foreign Aid is the miss-management. We just dump the food and money and hope it will get to the people who need it. Personally I would have the UN distribute it and if a third world govt starts saying they do not have the right to distribute said food/money, then the govt loses 25% of the next donation.

It doesn't matter what the U.N. does. Unless they hand deliver the aid, and only a day's worth at time, a large percentage will be stolen. This still doesn't address the issue of the aid either helping prop up lousy governments that are largely responsible for the rampant poverty, or helping feed the ongoing civil strife (which is why a lot of these countries are so poor). This will happen whether the aid is stolen or not. Reducing the aid because it was stolen won't matter either as it has no negative repercussions on the people/government that stole the aid. The best it will accomplish is teach the governments/warlords/what-have-you how to fool the U.N. into thinking that the aid wasn't stolen.

[MMI]

[QUOTE=Carpe Coma;797052]No, no one has a moral duty to look after the poor just because they are poor.

Yes. Yes they do! At least, that's the way I see it. I hate to sound sactimonious, but I cannot think of anything less moral than allowing people to die when it is possible to prevent it. All the more so when it is easily possible to prevent it.

As for your assertion that charity removes the risks of "behaviour", I cannot understand the concept of poverty as a form of behaviour. Behaviour is a response to some kind of stimulus. What is poverty responding to or reacting against? Wealth?

Hmmm. Charity removes the risks of poverty by making people rich. Discuss.


Nevertheless, you are unarguably right to point out that 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.

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=MMI;797194]

I cannot think of anything less moral than allowing people to die when it is possible to prevent it. All the more so when it is easily possible to prevent it.

I can think of many things which are less moral! Killing someone without just cause (and yes, I know you don't believe there is ever a just cause) for one.

But morality is a slippery slope. It is far too subjective for real discussion. One person's morality is another person's sin. Don't you think those terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9-11 thought they were morally correct in their actions? I'm sure they did!

[QUOTE]As for your assertion that charity removes the risks of "behaviour", I cannot understand the concept of poverty as a form of behaviour. Behaviour is a response to some kind of stimulus. What is poverty responding to or reacting against? Wealth?[QUOTE]
Actually, poverty is a symptom of, among other things, ignorance (not to be confused with stupidity.) People who don't know any different, who aren't aware that there may be ways out, are inclined to stay right where they are. I've seen, right in my own area, people who are barely making it from paycheck to paycheck who could really pull themselves out of the hole by selling a fraction of the land they own. But they won't do it. It was handed down from their father, or grandfather, or whoever, and they just have to hold on to it. So they starve themselves out of a sense of "tradition". Which is about as ignorant as you can get, in my book.

It might impoverish the donors somewhat at first, but both giver and recipient will benefit in the long run.

No, it will tend to move everyone to the same level, which would be far below the standards the donors are used to and far below the standards the poor would aspire to. Nobody wins, everybody loses, and there's nobody left to donate food or clothing. We all starve and freeze. Back to nature!!

[lucy]

No, it will tend to move everyone to the same level, which would be far below the standards the donors are used to and far below the standards the poor would aspire to. Nobody wins, everybody loses, and there's nobody left to donate food or clothing. We all starve and freeze. Back to nature!!

I think that is wrong. The fact that more and more Chinese can (or could, given that China's going through a crisis too right now) travel brings a lot of cash to Swiss holiday destinations. The equation is: rich Chinese - even richer Swiss.
Therefore, helping poor people out of poverty certainly helps us. Maybe only in the long run, but then again, we're not politicians and don't have to make sure we're reelected next year, or the year after. So we can afford the luxury to actually think in long terms.

Nevertheless, you are unarguably right to point out that small amounts of aid don't help much, and only massive support leading to reconstruction and development is enough.

I think that is wrong too. Much and massive support will very likely not have the desired effect. Instead, large amounts of aid, in whatever form, will attract people you don't want to be attracted. It very likely corrupts governments (if they're not corrupted already) and strengthen bad governance and finance guys you definitely don't want to finance.

I'm leaning far out now and take Italy as an example. Now, we all know that Italy isn't a third world country (however, i'm afraid it's likely on it's way to become a second world country). It is in fact a member of the G7 group, heaveon knows why. It is also a country divided. The division is between the rich north and the poor south.
The rich north has been and still is pouring billions and billions of Euros into the south, be it by directly financing, paying for infrastructure or paying more taxes compared to people in the south. What has been achieved in the last 60 years? Almost nothing. If you're a young Sicilian without good connections, you still have only three choices: Emigrate, stay poor and unemployed or join the Mafia.
The underlying problem of course is the corruption. Instead of financing the south and the mafia along with it, the Italian government should have ensured/forced good government first. Now of course that's nearly impossible, given the fact that Italy itself never has seen good governance.

To sum it up: I think aid should only be given in small amounts, and directly to the people, not to governments. Microcredits are a good way, although that system has one big drawback: A donor cannot fly in a helicopter above some great infrastructure he helped building with his aid dollars.

[Carpe Coma]

No, no one has a moral duty to look after the poor just because they are poor.

Yes. Yes they do! At least, that's the way I see it. I hate to sound sactimonious, but I cannot think of anything less moral than allowing people to die when it is possible to prevent it. All the more so when it is easily possible to prevent it.

As for your assertion that charity removes the risks of "behaviour", I cannot understand the concept of poverty as a form of behaviour. Behaviour is a response to some kind of stimulus. What is poverty responding to or reacting against? Wealth?

Hmmm. Charity removes the risks of poverty by making people rich. Discuss.


Nevertheless, you are unarguably right to point out that 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.

I can think of plenty of things less moral. I have a delightfully imaginative mind *grin*

Poverty is not a problem that can be solved simply by throwing money at it. Rich in irony, I know. The problem isn't charity per se, it is that once charity becomes a duty it destroys the impetus for rational utilization of capital by the recipient.

I'll illustrate with an exaggerated example; say I am totally impoverished and you are doing reasonably well. Since charity is a duty, you fulfill your obligation to give me some of your wealth. For simplicity, let's say a $100 bill. I take that bill and set it on fire. Now we are back to were we were before, except you are $100 dollars poorer. Since I am now totally impoverished again, you are back to being obligated to hand me another $100 dollars. Since I am guaranteed an nigh-infinite supply, why should I care what I do with what I get? I have no reason to be rational in how I utilize your (and everyone else's) charity.

"But I wouldn't do that after seeing how you treated the last $100."

So I'll go to someone else who feels obligated, or I'll burn it when you aren't looking.

"Then, I won't give money"

I'll take what you give me, sell it for money, and then burn it.

I'm not arguing against the idea of charity, just that you can not treat it is a moral obligation without seriously hampering it's effectiveness. Ineffective charity destroys wealth and accomplishes next to nothing except create a dependence on part of the recipient. There are three kinds of people in poverty; those that can't, those that won't, and those that don't know how. Effective charity has to be able to ignore those that won't, help those that can't, and teach those that don't know how.

[DuncanONeil]

"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; If you teach him to fish, you feed him for life.

Which of those is the true charity?

I can think of plenty of things less moral. I have a delightfully imaginative mind *grin*

Poverty is not a problem that can be solved simply by throwing money at it. Rich in irony, I know. The problem isn't charity per se, it is that once charity becomes a duty it destroys the impetus for rational utilization of capital by the recipient.

I'll illustrate with an exaggerated example; say I am totally impoverished and you are doing reasonably well. Since charity is a duty, you fulfill your obligation to give me some of your wealth. For simplicity, let's say a $100 bill. I take that bill and set it on fire. Now we are back to were we were before, except you are $100 dollars poorer. Since I am now totally impoverished again, you are back to being obligated to hand me another $100 dollars. Since I am guaranteed an nigh-infinite supply, why should I care what I do with what I get? I have no reason to be rational in how I utilize your (and everyone else's) charity.

"But I wouldn't do that after seeing how you treated the last $100."

So I'll go to someone else who feels obligated, or I'll burn it when you aren't looking.

"Then, I won't give money"

I'll take what you give me, sell it for money, and then burn it.

I'm not arguing against the idea of charity, just that you can not treat it is a moral obligation without seriously hampering it's effectiveness. Ineffective charity destroys wealth and accomplishes next to nothing except create a dependence on part of the recipient. There are three kinds of people in poverty; those that can't, those that won't, and those that don't know how. Effective charity has to be able to ignore those that won't, help those that can't, and teach those that don't know how.

[steelish]

No, no one has a moral duty to look after the poor just because they are poor.

Yes. Yes they do! At least, that's the way I see it. I hate to sound sactimonious, but I cannot think of anything less moral than allowing people to die when it is possible to prevent it. All the more so when it is easily possible to prevent it.

That has less to do with "duty" and more to do with humanity. I would agree to say that it is inhumane to stand idly by while others suffer or even die. But to say it is a duty is simply the wrong way to state it, in my opinion.

[DuncanONeil]

In 2006 the US alone gave $49 million to Bagaladesh and $213 Million to Kenya!

almost all monetary foreign aid is just positively spun bribery and is rarely in amount large to make a serious difference in the receiving country. It is entirely possible that foreign aid can prop up bad governments, especially military dictatorships.