Foreign aid - good or evil?

[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.