Foreign Aid destroying Africa?

[Bolo]

Recently, I read an article about the growing, and (so it seems) ever-more-ignored crisis in Africa. In it, I read some interesting ideas about how the West's relationship to that poorest of continents seems to be effecting it.

Of course the "crisis in Africa" to which I am referring has no specific point of origin. It has no real starting point, and no real ending point. Rather, it's a causality loop of mishap after bloody mishap, each leading to further descent into the abyss that might accurately be described as the closest thing we have to a Hell on Earth. AIDS, tribal fighting, overgrazing, and a hundred other proverbial rest stops dot the perimeter of this terrible sloping highway of death.

But you already know that.

A new problem, however, is emerging. And the West seems to be pouring salt on this wounded continent.

We've all seen those pictures on the news; the wretched little African children forced to the edge of starvation by drought and infighting. It may seem a harmless enough gesture, showing these children to the world. But however harmless it look, in actuality, it was a carefully calculated maneuver that is directed to you in order to entice you to donate money to the cause of providing food to end starvation.

And how does it make you feel? Guilty, probably. I know it's done that to me before. It may even cause you to go out and send a healthy little check in that general direction. Hell, ANYONE can be proactive! Look how easy it is! Fill out a blank check for a few dollars, and BAM, you're a fucking saint, right? We know exactly what's going to happen to our money if we send it direct to Africa—you've just bought a Janjaweed Fighter's AK47 for him. Don't expect a "thank you" note, unless your idea of thanksgiving is 100 more dead civilians on the Sudanese plains.

So what do we do, then? Why, we send it to one of our trusty Foreign Aid go-betweens that'll spend the money on nonperishable foods, instead of sending the money direct. It's a fail-safe solution, right? Food for everyone! Come one, Come all!

But, being shortsighted is one of those all-too-human characteristics. When something possibly CAN go wrong in our supposedly "flawless" line of logic, it most definitely WILL.

So here we are, happily sending off our care packages to Africa. Lah-dee-dah. We're so awesome. Look at us, helping you poor suckers over there across the ocean. And little by little, the plan starts to work. The Urban Africans are getting fed.

Hurrah! This day is one for the history books! We're making progress in a place where progress was thought to be impossible. Let's just hope we continue this helping streak long enough to feed ALL those saps!

...And feed them!

...And feed them.

And now we've created a monster, folks. Ever heard of "Welfare Bums"? Did you think that was an isolated phenomenon, limited to the United States? Well, guess what; we've got a few million Welfare Bums sitting around in Africa as we speak. How? How? How could this plan have failed us? Through the kind souls of the United States, we've given the Urban Africans what is, in effect, no-strings-attached Welfare, in the form of food. And you know what else? Some Africans are beginning to rely solely on the care packages for their survival.

"Fuck jobs. When you've got free food, why do you need to work?"

It's hard to understand the nuances of economics, when you're a poor African villager who's just trying to make his way in the world. How can they be expected to understand that by not working, they are causing their economy to collapse?

How can these villagers realize that the entire market structure of their economies is in danger of collapse, because of a lack of supply and demand for food?

Little do these poor urbanites realize, the US is not a bottomless pit of resources and care, and that by depending on the US to provide for them they've created a link that, when inevitably broken, will cause the country to collapse into more war.

And thus, will Africa hasten its journey down the increasingly-pocked highway, and into the depths.

[Memorize]

So what do you propose we do then? Not send money to the starving in other nations?

[Bolo]

At 5/1/07 01:44 AM, Memorize wrote: So what do you propose we do then? Not send money to the starving in other nations?

Honestly, I don't know what to propose. This is one of those few problems in life that defies an answer without repercussions. No matter what action we take, African people WILL die.

It's kind of sickening to know that we're juggling people's lives here, simply by debating the issue.

:\

[troubles1]

At 5/1/07 01:44 AM, Memorize wrote: So what do you propose we do then? Not send money to the starving in other nations?

it is like the bums we have in America , or better yet a stray dog if you feed it it will just keep coming back, it will not learn to fend for itself, through out history most country's have been through hard times , there people have starved, or been riddled with disease, just because it is modern times and we have ways of knowing about hardships in other countries does not mean we need to give up our Starbucks coffee, and big mac. hell we have our own poor, and our own stray dogs to feed, we call them ILLEGAL MEXICANS, To get rid of.

in all honesty ,YES . maybe it is time for them to have a all out civil war no holds bars in hopes some war lord will take over and at least unify the country. they have resources, Blood diamond's as we call them, whatever, the USA is not responsible for the entire world, we are attempting to create a working democracy in Iraq, and yet pussy's in our own country are calling for a retreat. the solution, one problem at a time.

besides, maybe AL Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson can do something , or at least leave this country, and stop harassing, Americans.

[Ravariel]

At 5/1/07 01:44 AM, Memorize wrote: So what do you propose we do then? Not send money to the starving in other nations?

Yes.

Instead, invest in their industry, be more pro-active in peacekeeping, teach them how to run businesses, pass the torch of agricultural exporter. Only if they learn how to keep themselves fed will it ever happen.

Giving help doesn't just mean giving them money and food.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/1/07 01:33 PM, Tal-con wrote:

It's probably more complicated than that, but w/e. We should try industrializing the African countries, if its at all possible.

That would work wonders if they cooperated and didn't get fucked over by other African nations at the same time.

[Cybex]

At 5/1/07 01:44 AM, Memorize wrote: So what do you propose we do then? Not send money to the starving in other nations?

How about try helping Africa by helping their economy rather than destroy it.

[HighlyIllogical]

I dunno about the rest of you, but using peacekeepers to rectify conflicts (give the peacekeepers a STRONG mandate and weak ROE), and working to finance infrastructure is more valuable than anything. Creating jobs and industry is the goal, but you need infrastructure - roads, electricity etc., and by building that, you create temporary jobs, too. Yay.

[SyntheticTacos]

I don't think we can judge how we should send aid to an entire continent. It must be dealt with in a case by case basis. There are some places where aid will help. and other places where the aid won't help. One of the biggest problems is that in the poorest places the government is sometimes too corrupt to even send all the aid that it is given to the people. There are many places ravaged where people may have been able to survive before. Those people have to rely on aid packages because they can't grow food anymore. If there's a bad season, many people could die, and that's the way it is in many places. Africa needs more social help programs but with the governments being corrupt as they are it's hard to get the money to the people who actually need it.

[G-Locked]

I understand where your coming from, and much of the aid we do send probably is stolen for illicit uses, but simply cutting off aid to an entire continent is simply inhuman. Its like being able to dampen the effects of the Holocaust and not doing it. There isn't, and probably never will be a solution, but like it or not we're stuck with it.

[Cybex]

At 5/1/07 05:36 PM, G-Locked wrote: I understand where your coming from, and much of the aid we do send probably is stolen for illicit uses, but simply cutting off aid to an entire continent is simply inhuman. Its like being able to dampen the effects of the Holocaust and not doing it. There isn't, and probably never will be a solution, but like it or not we're stuck with it.

Giving aid to Africa is unhealthy for their economy. It mucks up their supply and demand. It would be fine if we actually helped devellop theireconomy, but giving them food and money damages their economy in the long run, even if it does save a few lives.

[Der-Lowe]

At 5/1/07 02:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: That would work wonders if they cooperated and didn't get fucked over by other African nations at the same time.

Yeah, I say leave them alone with their problems.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 5/1/07 01:34 AM, Bolo wrote: And now we've created a monster, folks. Ever heard of "Welfare Bums"?

What in the world are you talking about? Seriously.

You're buggin if you actually think that sending food to people who are starving and impoverished has magically turned them into lazy, complacent bums expecting the government to do everything for them. I doubt they expect ANYTHING positive from their own governments at this point, and instead are probably just hoping and praying that they might get enough food to manage the next week... that is, if it isn't stolen by warlords first en-route from the Red Cross station or whatever.

This thread oversimplifies things so much that the phrase "dumbing it down" doesn't even do the topic justice. A welfare bum is someone that has the ability to work and be productive but doesn't want to because they'd rather just live off their free government pittance. Those people starving in Africa aren't an entire culture of lazy-asses, they just simply don't have the means or resources available to them to escape the situation they're in. They're languishing over there, not snickering to themselves about how those sucker westerners just keep on sending them more food than they actually need.

While sending food may not effectively address the underlying problems that cause all this poverty and famine, it does attempt to address one crucial problem: people starving right now. Still though, the suggestion that feeding people (who are literally dying of starvation) has turned them into "welfare bums" is some of the stupidest shit I've read here... in the past week... which really isn't saying much, I guess.

-------------------------------------------

If anything, what's destroying Africa isn't the fact that other nations are attempting to help feed it, it's the fact that out of all the money made from its natural resources (whether metals, minerals, gems, whatever) hardly ANY of it is actually used in a manner that is beneficial to the African people. It just further lines the pockets of those who are already living in wealth.

[Bolo]

At 5/1/07 06:15 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: What in the world are you talking about? Seriously.

I'm talking about this one.

You're buggin if you actually think that sending food to people who are starving and impoverished has magically turned them into lazy, complacent bums expecting the government to do everything for them.

It often comes as a surprise to Westerners that their gifts could be hurting African interests instead of helping them. I find it difficult to believe, myself. However, we have eyewitness accounts from aid workers in Africa. We have people who've seen this phenomenon firsthand.

I doubt they expect ANYTHING positive from their own governments at this point,

I agree that the governments are partially at fault for this.

and instead are probably just hoping and praying that they might get enough food to manage the next week...

That's EXACTLY what the people are hoping for. More aid from foreign countries. I know this sounds callous, but I think its human nature to accept aid when it is offered, and needed, and the African people have no recourse but to accept it when given so generously. It's fine in moderation, but what happens when we pour so many resources out to Africa, that the people become dependent on it to survive? They lose the need, and the will to work, because food is so readily available. What happens when that aid stops coming? The country's economy will already have collapsed, and the number of jobs available will have fallen slowly. Suddenly, millions of people will want jobs again, and the demand will outstretch the availability.

that is, if it isn't stolen by warlords first en-route from the Red Cross station or whatever.

True, the aid, if in monetary form, will somehow inevitably find its way into government coffers, where it will be squandered.

This thread oversimplifies things so much that the phrase "dumbing it down" doesn't even do the topic justice.

Now that's a bit harsh. :) Frankly, I don't even think it's an oversimplification. The gears are already in motion, and the train has left the station on this one.

A welfare bum is someone that has the ability to work and be productive but doesn't want to because they'd rather just live off their free government pittance.

That's a pretty accurate description of the kind of thing that's just beginning to occur. The only difference is that they're living off of OUR generosity and welfare provisions, and not their own government's. I don't mean to sound like I don't want to help these people, I just think we could be hurting them more than we could possibly realize in this manner.

Those people starving in Africa aren't an entire culture of lazy-asses,

You're right, they aren't. I never meant to imply that, if that's what you thought.

they just simply don't have the means or resources available to them to escape the situation they're in.

Which is exactly why they're so willing to accept free aid when it's presented to them. I would, too, in that situation.

They're languishing over there, not snickering to themselves about how those sucker westerners just keep on sending them more food than they actually need.

I know. They aren't "snickering" about anything when they're faced with death on a daily basis. Some just don't really comprehend that aid is NOT a substitute for a job. Many of them see it as a replacement, and, indeed, that is the main cause of this counterproductive manner of thinking.

I'm not criticizing their character. I'm simply commenting that their limited educational system is not able to provide adequate information about their economy to the citizens. There is not enough infrastructure in place, to that effect. In turn, infrastructure demands money to support itself, and money will be immediately squandered by the government. See the vicious circle?

While sending food may not effectively address the underlying problems that cause all this poverty and famine, it does attempt to address one crucial problem: people starving right now.

I agree, but the idea of simply sending food needs to be a bridge toward greater ambitions, NOT the solution itself. If we allow to become that, then Africa further descend.

Still though, the suggestion that feeding people (who are literally dying of starvation) has turned them into "welfare bums" is some of the stupidest shit I've read here... in the past week... which really isn't saying much, I guess.

The term, as I used it, was merely a euphemistic device that relates it to the United States, so as to be an easier concept for some, admittedly, thick-headed people that frequent this site, to understand

-------------------------------------------

If anything, what's destroying Africa isn't the fact that other nations are attempting to help feed it, it's the fact that out of all the money made from its natural resources (whether metals, minerals, gems, whatever) hardly ANY of it is actually used in a manner that is beneficial to the African people. It just further lines the pockets of those who are already living in wealth.

Again, I agree with most of that. But instead of merely sending food and money, we need to send human assistance. These are people we're dealing with, here. Real people, with real lives. Surely, in lieu of throwing resources at Africa as fast as they can catch it, we should go there ourselves and deal with these people in person. Only then can we get a real scope of the issue we're involving ourselves with.

And, if we don't somehow keep track of the resources we send, the rich aristocrats will grow richer, and the poor Urbanites will grow poorer.

[Primoos]

At 5/1/07 01:44 AM, Memorize wrote: So what do you propose we do then? Not send money to the starving in other nations?

Reduce their population with bullets.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/1/07 05:43 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 5/1/07 02:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Yeah, I say leave them alone with their problems.

Exactly, lets worry about America first and let the Africans set thier own destiny.

[Der-Lowe]

At 5/1/07 09:50 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Yeah, I say leave them alone with their problems.

Exactly, lets worry about America first and let the Africans set thier own destiny.

Finally Mortified, we've come to an agreement in Politics!
*shakes Mortified's hand*

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/1/07 09:50 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Exactly, lets worry about America first and let the Africans set thier own destiny.

That's just going to destabilize the world further. Why upset the geopolitical balance? By improving Africa, you benefit everyone -- it'd be new markets and new intellectual resources, among other things.

So much for conservatives being nativists...

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/1/07 10:15 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 5/1/07 09:50 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

That's just going to destabilize the world further. Why upset the geopolitical balance? By improving Africa, you benefit everyone -- it'd be new markets and new intellectual resources, among other things.

The geopolitical balance is already let Africa deal with thier own problems.
Because a government shouldn't deficet spend and we should deal with our deficit already.
I try not to be an imperialist.
We'll fuck it up somehow and Africa will just end up worse then it is already.

So much for conservatives being nativists...

I prefer the term isolationist.

[HighlyIllogical]

Our defecit could be fixed quite easily. Cut a couple billion from the defense budget while raising taxes on the top 5% of incomes, as well as removing corporate and agricultural subsidies.

We could always sell Iraqi oil, though :D

[Memorize]

At 5/1/07 10:20 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Our defecit could be fixed quite easily. Cut a couple billion from the defense budget while raising taxes on the top 5% of incomes, as well as removing corporate and agricultural subsidies.

We could also stop funneling billions into under performing programs, but...

Anyway. This is why I like leaving things up to the Individual handing out cash.

[JoS]

The arguement surround aid to developing countries (especially food aid) is one that ahs been going on for years. However the main issue is not so much around the idea of "welfare bums" and what it does to the economy. When we send all this food fro the starving Africans to eat we are helping them right?

The answer is not a clear cut as one would like to think. While some Africans are getting food to eat (its usually whatever we have a surplus of, I have heard stories of the US sending over tons of olives as food aid before), African farmers are getting the short end of the stick. How do you compete with free food? You don't. The famers no longer have a domestic market to provide for and lose huge source of revenue. Not only does his make the farmers poorer and make it more difficult for them to survive, it also takes money out of the economy. These farmers who would have had some money from selling locally would then in turn buy stuff, which feeds the economy.

I am not saying there is no place for food aid, when famine strikes we must do something, but we can not keep throwing free food into the conomy and expect the farmers to work themselves out of a hole we are putting them in.

FYI all those clothes you send to developing countries, they are nto given out for free. There is an entire economy built around 2nd hand clothes and people sell them and make money off them, street vendors. They do not make huge sums but its a livelyhood. However this in-turn puts local producers of clothing out of business because they have to pay for their suff, unliek the free 2nd hand goods.

[321]

The best way to "handle" Africa...

Aid in building of infrastructure, but the old saying remains... Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, well you know the rest...

My biggest problem with all "third world" nations is they keep popping out children, when they can't even feed themselves... It just doesn't make sense.

[Der-Lowe]

At 5/2/07 03:29 AM, Penta wrote: My biggest problem with all "third world" nations is they keep popping out children, when they can't even feed themselves... It just doesn't make sense.

It does, they do that to balance their mortality rates.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/1/07 10:20 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Our defecit could be fixed quite easily. Cut a couple billion from the defense budget while raising taxes on the top 5% of incomes, as well as removing corporate and agricultural subsidies.

You do realize that the military and defense recieve 4.06 according to the CIA for 2005 and percent of our total GDP. So really, your not going to be scrapping the barrel for much here, considering the shape our military is in right now, and more importantly the Army.

Wiki has a good source on it.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook /rankorder/2034rank.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_
of_the_United_States#_note-4

[HighlyIllogical]

You're kidding, right?
The budget for the military, w/o the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is ~$400 billion...

If we were to pull out of Iraq, we could save money, too. But that's beside the point. If we spend less, we would at least be working towards cutting the defecit. Spending, say $50 billion less per year would be a big deal.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/2/07 04:40 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: You're kidding, right?
The budget for the military, w/o the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is ~$400 billion...

I linked our current budges and percentage of our GDP. We spend much more money on many other things.
And when we start to show strains in our Army and other armed forces intimes of distress, slashing military budgets is never a good thing.

If we were to pull out of Iraq, we could save money, too. But that's beside the point. If we spend less, we would at least be working towards cutting the defecit. Spending, say $50 billion less per year would be a big deal.

We could also cut out pork in our government, lessen government waste and regulation, get rid of dead weight and useless organistations in our government.

There's many things we could be doing, and slashing the military while were in the process of Nationbuilding isn't one of them.

[maxs4]

Fuck Africa! Whares are donatioon money going to! The next American Iol stage? We send are money down there for the little boys and girls to live and they have kids with aids! Its a never ending fucking aids fest! The over population rate is already to high as it is!

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/2/07 04:44 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

And when we start to show strains in our Army and other armed forces intimes of distress, slashing military budgets is never a good thing.

It is not about our total budget. It's a question of cutting defense spending where it's wasteful – look at our bloated Air Force as a key example...

They want air superiority when our newest MBT is over two decades old.....

[HighlyIllogical]

Sorry, I meant new air superiority fighters (i.e. the multi-billion dollar F-22 program...what a waste. The F-35 is what we need.)...