Foreign aid - good or evil?

[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!

[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.