Foreign aid - good or evil?

[MMI]

I think what troubles Thorne is he thinks that, by helping others, he must be the loser. I think this is a mistaken notion, which lucy ably demonstrates. When more wealth is created, there is more wealth to share around.

I understand what you say about some rulers deliberately keeping their populations ignorant up to a point, but I don't think withholding information stops people knowing they are starving, and as far as I can tell, such policies are rarely successful. You say yourself that, despite the USSR's attempts to keep Muscovites in ignorance of their own city's layout, they soon obtained Western maps instead.

Mugabe cannot keep Zimbawean citizens ignorant, because they know things do not have to be the way they are. Only recently was Zimbabwe one of the richest nations in Africa. Now it is among the poorest. Mugabe blames Britain and the white population: he is using racism as a weapon of self preservation - but this argument belongs to another thread. (I wish Britain would invade, by the way, if no-one else in Africa will do anything.)

Latin Americans know how good life is in the north. There's no way they can be kept in igonrance of it.

The hunger North Koreans are experiencing is due (a) to the famine endured by that country in the 1990's following the collapse of the communist bloc, and to economic decline and falling levels of food production since. But North Koreans cannot change things without rebelling, and as you indicate, armed sentries, if such there are, prevent this happening.

I do not think ignorance is the explanation.


Small amounts of aid will keep people alive, but it will not create wealth. Therefore, I argue for larger aid programmes. And I am also prepared to argue for all necessary force to be used if those aid programmes are interfered with, whether that be by corrupt governments, tribal warlords, organised crime or petty embezzlers. Aid that helps develop a new economy or kick-start a stagnant one, so that, from then on, the third world can start to help itself: that's what I want to see. Surely, everyone would like that too?

I have no beef with small amounts of aid being given. It is all good, but massive aid is better than small amounts. Microcredits and micro finance are good ideas (I belong to an organisation that provides small loans to the financially excluded in the UK, and I can see this working although in an entirely different environment). But they are extremely limited in their effect, and they are not immune from corrupt administration or managment. The life of only one person at a time is improved, or one family, or one village if the credit is large enough, and this is just too damned slow to prevent large scale suffering elsewhere.

It is startling to see a developed country lke Italy cited as an example of how aid can be appropriated by organised crime, but the southern parts of that country are relatively poor. I would sugggest Italy is a bad example of a country in need of support, however, because it is within its own power to set matters right, even if it would require an unimaginable effort of will on the part of its citizens: it seems that crime is a way of life in Sicily, and corrupt government also. However, no-one is in danger of starving, but if that changes, we have a duty to step in. The point that organised crime negates all the good intentions of those who give aid is a good one, and it must be recognised and dealt with.

At this point, I've run out of steam!

[Thorne]

I think what troubles Thorne is he thinks that, by helping others, he must be the loser.

Well, yeah! I've always known that! People are always ranting about how donations to charity are tax deductible. So if I donate $10 to charity, I get to deduct $1 from my taxes! I'm still out 9$, and the government is out $1. So where's the plus for me? (Numbers not necessarily right, but they get the point across.)

I understand what you say about some rulers deliberately keeping their populations ignorant up to a point, but I don't think withholding information stops people knowing they are starving, and as far as I can tell, such policies are rarely successful. You say yourself that, despite the USSR's attempts to keep Muscovites in ignorance of their own city's layout, they soon obtained Western maps instead.

Look at the common people in places like North Korea, and ask them if the policies are successful. Many of them have been told, repeatedly, and believe that the West is responsible for all of their problems, and their leaders are doing all in their power to save them. They don't get any real information from outside their own propaganda machines, so they have no way to know what's true. And the Muscovites didn't start getting good maps until after the start of detente when things started opening up and more information from the west was getting in. In fact, that kind of information seepage was, in my opinion, largely responsible for the collapse of the Soviet regime.

(I wish Britain would invade, by the way, if no-one else in Africa will do anything.)
...
I am also prepared to argue for all necessary force to be used if those aid programmes are interfered with, whether that be by corrupt governments, tribal warlords, organised crime or petty embezzlers.

Now wait a minute, isn't that sowing the seeds of colonialism? Isn't that how the British and the American's wound up with their colonies and/or territories? It sounds like you're willing to use force to keep others from using force.

Latin Americans know how good life is in the north. There's no way they can be kept in igonrance of it.

And that's why they keep heading north. And that's why the Latin American governments don't try to stop them from heading north. They would be thrown out of their cushy jobs if they did!

The hunger North Koreans are experiencing is due (a) to the famine endured by that country in the 1990's following the collapse of the communist bloc, and to economic decline and falling levels of food production since.

This may be true, but how many of those who are staving know this? As I said above, they are told it's our fault, not the failure of the Communists.

I do not think ignorance is the explanation.

Ignorance is one contributing factor. Not the only one, by any means, but a large one, in my opinion.

[DuncanONeil]

You have never understood the things that Thorne has had to say. You tend to only focus on the words and not what he actually says!

I think what troubles Thorne is he thinks that, by helping others, he must be the loser. I think this is a mistaken notion, which lucy ably demonstrates. When more wealth is created, there is more wealth to share around.

I understand what you say about some rulers deliberately keeping their populations ignorant up to a point, but I don't think withholding information stops people knowing they are starving, and as far as I can tell, such policies are rarely successful. You say yourself that, despite the USSR's attempts to keep Muscovites in ignorance of their own city's layout, they soon obtained Western maps instead.

Mugabe cannot keep Zimbawean citizens ignorant, because they know things do not have to be the way they are. Only recently was Zimbabwe one of the richest nations in Africa. Now it is among the poorest. Mugabe blames Britain and the white population: he is using racism as a weapon of self preservation - but this argument belongs to another thread. (I wish Britain would invade, by the way, if no-one else in Africa will do anything.)

Latin Americans know how good life is in the north. There's no way they can be kept in igonrance of it.

The hunger North Koreans are experiencing is due (a) to the famine endured by that country in the 1990's following the collapse of the communist bloc, and to economic decline and falling levels of food production since. But North Koreans cannot change things without rebelling, and as you indicate, armed sentries, if such there are, prevent this happening.

I do not think ignorance is the explanation.


Small amounts of aid will keep people alive, but it will not create wealth. Therefore, I argue for larger aid programmes. And I am also prepared to argue for all necessary force to be used if those aid programmes are interfered with, whether that be by corrupt governments, tribal warlords, organised crime or petty embezzlers. Aid that helps develop a new economy or kick-start a stagnant one, so that, from then on, the third world can start to help itself: that's what I want to see. Surely, everyone would like that too?

I have no beef with small amounts of aid being given. It is all good, but massive aid is better than small amounts. Microcredits and micro finance are good ideas (I belong to an organisation that provides small loans to the financially excluded in the UK, and I can see this working although in an entirely different environment). But they are extremely limited in their effect, and they are not immune from corrupt administration or managment. The life of only one person at a time is improved, or one family, or one village if the credit is large enough, and this is just too damned slow to prevent large scale suffering elsewhere.

It is startling to see a developed country lke Italy cited as an example of how aid can be appropriated by organised crime, but the southern parts of that country are relatively poor. I would sugggest Italy is a bad example of a country in need of support, however, because it is within its own power to set matters right, even if it would require an unimaginable effort of will on the part of its citizens: it seems that crime is a way of life in Sicily, and corrupt government also. However, no-one is in danger of starving, but if that changes, we have a duty to step in. The point that organised crime negates all the good intentions of those who give aid is a good one, and it must be recognised and dealt with.

At this point, I've run out of steam!