Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think that substancial amounts of finincial aid should be directed heavely to legitimate governments in africa. As these countries modernize, the people under dictatorships will grow jealous and over throw their oppressers. They will get aid until they devolop, and so on.

Another thing that the legit govs have to do is convince investment and tourism.

At 2/7/06 06:17 PM, Captn_ wrote: While programs and organizations like the Red Cross help in temporary relief situations, they aren't meant for permanent establishment as the primary food source. Their presence prevents formation of stable sources of relief because they become a free, easy source of access to food, effectively monopolizing that market for their time of presence.

Other programs could be implemented to accelerate the recouperation process. Programs that establish support for already existing businesses would be the best, as long as the business is reputable. Programs that build homes and educate children are excellent alternatives. Hospitals, schools, and roads are always needed, and could only help. There are some great alternatives for food programs, that could be given the surplus of funding from cutting the majority of food programs.

I think it's a wonderful idea. I couldn't agree more.
Although I have a couple of question: wouldn't all this hospital, school, roads building be much more expensive than relief programs. Would countries like the US and those of the European Union agree to pay for these new programs? Because I don't really see this being a topic in the G7, sadly.

I think Africa needs communism.

That "money" we are donating is getting donated, but due to corruption, and corrupt leaders whom use that money to fund thier wellbeing, also some of that donated money is used to fund wars aswell. so in other words it gets filtered off.

At 2/8/06 02:57 AM, sdhonda wrote: I think that substancial amounts of finincial aid should be directed heavely to legitimate governments in africa. As these countries modernize, the people under dictatorships will grow jealous and over throw their oppressers. They will get aid until they devolop, and so on.

Another thing that the legit govs have to do is convince investment and tourism.

That's another good idea. The only problem I can see with it is that it would require substantial funding outside of the regular amounts, which is a bit unrealistic to expect. In the situation where funding is great enough to impliment that, it could do nicely.
----------

At 2/19/06 06:35 AM, SheffieldWednesday wrote: That "money" we are donating is getting donated, but due to corruption, and corrupt leaders whom use that money to fund thier wellbeing, also some of that donated money is used to fund wars aswell. so in other words it gets filtered off.

Most organizations don't just donate money and forget about it. The more credible ones will actually both hire people and put together teams of volunteers. The leaders see very little of the money, if any.

If you'd like to take a gander at The Red Cross' 2004 financial report, Here you go.
----------

At 2/19/06 01:27 AM, Der_Lowe wrote: wouldn't all this hospital, school, roads building be much more expensive than relief programs?

Services and rentals are the bulk of expenses, so if they rented construction vehicles and trained more people to build roads and buildings, instead of the costs in food servies, it wouldn't be drastically more.

Would countries like the US and those of the European Union agree to pay for these new programs? Because I don't really see this being a topic in the G7, sadly.

If a real, well rounded and sound plan that promised resolve in the next decade crossed their noses, they might be tempted.
-----------

At 2/19/06 01:32 AM, subpar wrote: I think Africa needs communism.

Interesting idea, but I don't think abolishing free trade would help.

Care to ellaborate your argument? Or are you just joking? Because I'm trying to take everything in this thread seriously.

How much money do developed countries spend in food relief for africa? I think money would be a key factor, because the US and Europe don't actually have big surplus to spend.

At 2/19/06 01:32 AM, subpar wrote: I think Africa needs communism.

Communism is a good way to industralization, and communist countries (eg Cuba) have good health and education standard. However, it also includes tyranny, (eg Cuba), and after a brief period , the growth stops. So, in the long run, communism would be prejudicial.
And we must consider developed countries, who wouldn't be keen on a communist continent.
A colonization is also to be considered, mainly professionals to work in hospital schools and also universites, so to educate the african population, and after this objective is fulfilled, the professionals can go back to their home countries.

At 2/7/06 06:18 PM, BFG-Nine-Thousand wrote: I'd be willing to believe it. Seeing as how giving aid for nearly a quarter of a century hasn't improved things, it's time for some new ideas.

How about we send you there so you can realise that there ISNT any new ideas because people have there hands wraped around there wallets.

The problem isn't food, the problem is infrastructure. It seems that in countries like Kenya, there is plenty of food near the big cities and the harbors. But not enough in the less vertile regions. They haven't got the infrastructure to transport it.

Money, isn't a problem there, when there isn't many money, the prices stay low.
The only real solution, is a structure solution.
If help organisations would start to build roads, railroads etc. And use african people as employees, it would give such countries a better start. Ofcourse, education is needed.
But remember, that our education systems started to work when the economy was in good hands, not otherwise.

well lets see... we got... civil war, aids, corrupt governments...

well hell, lets just not feed em at all and let their population drop like a brick! once their population is under control, then we can step in and help them begin farming.

some people overestimate the value of human life, there have been many times in history where the human population has been cut down to size, but plagues, wars, even government programs.

a little extermination does the government body good.

At 2/7/06 06:54 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

Maybe you're little idea's wouldn't work if the Brittish had not completely and utterly fucked up Africa already. Besides slavory, note that it really was thier fault things like the Rowanda Genocide happened.

;
Slavery was practiced there long befor the British(Europeans) explored & settled there.
How in the hell can a tribe of Tutsie's killing Hutu's (excuse my misspelling of their traditional names) be blamed on the British?????
Also all of Africa isn't the problem, countries on the Mediterainian sea are fairly stable.
South Africa as a country is doing relativly well.
But look at Rhodesia- now called Zimbabwe it used to grow so much food that they were a large exporter. the new Goverment of ... native people's took power & decided to "help" the country by taking over all the successful farms & giving them back to the 'people'.
Who for the most part were goverment hangers on & family.
Also most everyone who took this productive land over DID NOT KNOW HOW TO FARM IT.
many of these new 'farmers' immediately took the irrigation pipeing systems apart & sold it as scrap.
I wonder why the agricultural out put went from #1 to the bottom of the heap.
So lets turn off the aid.
Let the countries wracked by civil war continue to kill each other, but don't support them in any way.
Everything else that has been tried hasn't worked , so lets try something extreme.
For those that feel this is harsh, if your a member of an organized religion you can take heart in they're all going to a better place.

Let's just wipe our hands clean and let them sort out their own mess.
It's not as though we in the west haven't any problems of our own to solve.

I don't think many people realize the real issue here. The natural order of things is when one country is dependent on another. In the case of Africa, the least developed continent in the world, they are experiencing the world much slower than the rest of the world because of economic instability and government corruption. They are just in an earlier historical setting than we are.

Trust me when I say stopping the food program will not change things. It is not a simple matter of having people run their own business, they are not even economically stable enough to have business. They are not ready for such a commitment for the very reason they are the least developed country.

Take note of the fact that Africa experiences the largest brain drain of skilled workers of any other continent. This means there is serious labor force problem in Africa because everyone who can afford it is getting out of Africa to seek economic stability and a better quality life. How is business supposed to be conducted without a labor force and no reason for workers to stay or come?

There is also the fact tht many of the nations in Africa are completely divided and have no clear leadership. The governments are corrupt and many take most of the wealth for themselves and friends. ANd here in the U.S everyone focuses on lightweights like Fidel Castro who is on his deathbed while never concentrating on the continous corruption in Africa. Stopping Aid in Africa will only aid the dictators who don't necessarily need the labor force in order for they themselves to prosper.

The weak must be purged for Africa to become strong. Plain and simple. And if they all die out without our interventention either way, then perhaps their time had come and gone, and the rest of world must be able to accept that. Other areas who underwent imperialism prospered, and partially from it. Slavery was not new to Africa. We bought many slaves from Africans and moved them over the sea.

At 1/11/07 02:50 PM, Durin413 wrote: The weak must be purged for Africa to become strong. Plain and simple. And if they all die out without our interventention either way, then perhaps their time had come and gone, and the rest of world must be able to accept that. Other areas who underwent imperialism prospered, and partially from it. Slavery was not new to Africa. We bought many slaves from Africans and moved them over the sea.

How do we let something like corrupt dictators continue to rule? There isnt going to be a sudden change like that where the corrupt dictator chooses a good successor.

humans do not follow the Survival of the Fittest tactics you say.