• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

G-20 to give $1 trillion to IMF, World Bank

How can anyone say with a straight face, that a "new world order" was NOW created:confused: If anything, they just let China in;)

The NWO is now revealing it's holiest ideal - "Stability."

Here's something to think about whenever you hear the stability worshipers speak.

Tao Te Ching 76 said:
A newborn is soft and tender,
A crone, hard and stiff.
Plants and animals, in life, are supple and succulent;
In death, withered and dry.
So softness and tenderness are attributes of life,
And hardness and stiffness, attributes of death.

Just as a sapless tree will split and decay
So an inflexible force will meet defeat;
The hard and mighty lie beneath the ground
While the tender and weak dance on the breeze above.
 
Last edited:
How and when did the people of impovrished nations acquire a right to the wealth of the American people -- specifically, mine?

By providing them with natural resources at unjustly low prices.Foreign aid is a form of reparation for the way in which the third world loses out in global trade, not charity.
 
Last edited:
By providing them with natural resources at unjustly low prices.Foreign aid is a form of reparation for the way in which the third world loses out in global trade, not charity.
Hardly. I owe these people nothing.
 
Yeah someone please tell me what I or my wife have ever done to anyone in those countries. If you can tell me how I personaly screwed them over than I will be happy to give to them. If not I would pefer to keep my money for myself thank you very much.
 
By providing them with natural resources at unjustly low prices.Foreign aid is a form of reparation for the way in which the third world loses out in global trade, not charity.
Foreign aid is charity.

If third world countries want to engage in global trade, let them focus their energies on developing such goods as they can export profitably. In short, they should trade. Then they would not "lose out" on global trade.
 
Yeah someone please tell me what I or my wife have ever done to anyone in those countries. If you can tell me how I personaly screwed them over than I will be happy to give to them. If not I would pefer to keep my money for myself thank you very much.

Where did you ever get the absurd idea that you had to personally be responsible for something for the government to have to pay for it?

I've personally never flown a plane into a skyscraper, so should I have to pay taxes to fight terrorism? :roll:
 
Foreign aid is charity.

Not if done properly. Countries need to reach a certain base level of development before they can really develop their economies on their own.

celticlord said:
If third world countries want to engage in global trade, let them focus their energies on developing such goods as they can export profitably. In short, they should trade. Then they would not "lose out" on global trade.

The problem is that they can't develop any goods without some assistance. As I mentioned earlier, their workforce is completely unmarketable if it's constantly dying from easily-preventable diseases and has a fourth-grade education. Their agriculture is completely unmarketable if they constantly ruin their environment and practice unsustainable development. And they can never hope to provide these things as long as their population continues to explode because they don't have access to condoms.

I completely agree with you that they need to start trading and developing profitable exports. But the problem is that they can't get to that point without some outside assistance. Foreign aid assistance in certain key areas - health (this is the most important one by far), education, environment, and birth control - would help them reach the point where they can start building up their economies on their own. It wouldn't even cost nearly as much or last nearly as long as most people think.
 
Spreading the wealth is essential to help the poorest nations escape poverty. Once they've built their economy up to a certain point, they will no longer require outside economic aid.

And how many countries have built their economies up on the basis of foreign aid? Precious few. I live in one of the VERY few countries that could actually HONESTLY make the claim.
 
It's worked quite well in most places where foreign aid has actually been committed. The problem with Africa isn't that foreign assistance hasn't worked, it's that developed nations have been much more stingy with their foreign aid money to Africa than they were to most Asian countries.

How many countries have risen out of poverty as a result of handouts from western governments? If you look at it very closely, you would find that the number is very small indeed.
 
The problem is that they can't develop any goods without some assistance. As I mentioned earlier, their workforce is completely unmarketable if it's constantly dying from easily-preventable diseases and has a fourth-grade education. Their agriculture is completely unmarketable if they constantly ruin their environment and practice unsustainable development. And they can never hope to provide these things as long as their population continues to explode because they don't have access to condoms.
Do they have commodities such as oil and minerals?

Do they have resources such as timber?

If they are as worthless as you describe, how can they ever hope to trade?

If they are not worthless, why not build their global trade around what resources they have that are of value?
 
And how many countries have built their economies up on the basis of foreign aid? Precious few. I live in one of the VERY few countries that could actually HONESTLY make the claim.

Pretty much every successful country can honestly make that claim, with the possible exceptions of the US and the UK. And I would question how much even those are exceptions.

Many of those countries started from better starting points than many African nations do...but they also received a lot more assistance. It would actually not be very expensive to eliminate 99% of malaria cases in Africa, distribute condoms, teach people how to read and do basic arithmetic, encourage sustainable environmental practices, provide clean water, and provide nitrates to help people grow crops.

If those things were commonplace throughout Africa, African trade with the rest of the world would boom. An initial investment can pay huge dividends...both for the African countries in question, and for their trade partners in the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
Do they have commodities such as oil and minerals?

Do they have resources such as timber?

Yes, many parts of Africa are very-resource rich.

celticlord said:
If they are as worthless as you describe, how can they ever hope to trade?

If they are not worthless, why not build their global trade around what resources they have that are of value?

Because they practice unsustainable development and have a sickly/uneducated work force. They can never hope to develop their economy as long as those problems remain. Foreign aid can go a long way to preventing these problems.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much every successful country can honestly make that claim, with the possible exceptions of the US and the UK. And I would question how much even those are exceptions.

I would argue that the UK isnt an exception attal. We would have been ****ed without the Marshall Plan [he says begrudginly]
 
Do they have commodities such as oil and minerals?

Do they have resources such as timber?

If they are as worthless as you describe, how can they ever hope to trade?

If they are not worthless, why not build their global trade around what resources they have that are of value?

And therein lies the problem. Firstly exporting these things is very difficult given the tarrifs for importing things into developed economys like the US and EU are very high. Secondly it tends to be those exporting raw materials to industrialised countys that get the raw end of the deal hence why industrialised countrys are richer [see Andre Gunther Frank].
 
Yeah someone please tell me what I or my wife have ever done to anyone in those countries. If you can tell me how I personaly screwed them over than I will be happy to give to them. If not I would pefer to keep my money for myself thank you very much.

This isnt so much about what anyones "done" to anyone else as much as its about a finanical relationship in which one end gets the raw end of the deal. Whilst im sure you and your wife are lovely the machine your are using to read this is likely to have been made using material from all over the world. Those involved in producing/mining these materials will probably have been paid badly and little of the money made from the sale of the computer will have gone to the country that these raw materials came from.

This is something i noticed alot when I was teaching in Peru. The country has a huge mining industry but many people cant afford to send their kids to school as the uniforms, books etc. are outside their price range. I was working for a chairity that helped those who had fallen out of the net of the mainstream schooling system to get back into it but which could barely afford books. IE a country that produces some materials that are of increasing value in the light of the economic crisis cant afford to educate its children

Assuming you drink tea or eat chocolate or fruit its also worth thinking about were these come from. Whilst you and I havent "done" anything we are still on the better end of a raw deal. No man is an island as the saying goes.

However its also worth bearing in mind that this isnt necessarily a zero sum game. If we could help third world countries develop their agriculture through things like irrigation [or dare i say it: GM crops] then its easy to see how we could benefit in light of the ever rising price of food.
 
Countries need to reach a certain base level of development before they can really develop their economies on their own.
In other words, they don't need to be countries.
 
They practice unsustainable development and have a sickly/uneducated work force. They can never hope to develop their economy as long as those problems remain. Foreign aid can go a long way to preventing these problems.

Key words: "They practice".

If they want sustainable development, let them practice sustainable development. If they want an educated work force, let them build schools and have the literate teach the illiterate.

None of the problems you describe require foreign aid to remedy--and the glittering non-success of foreign aid efforts to date suggests that foreign aid merely compounds these problems.
 
In other words, they don't need to be countries.

There is a good argument that many African countries don't need to be countries, as the borders were drawn by the French, Belgian, and English colonialists without regard to the social or historical condition of the people living there.

However, that doesn't change the fact that whether or not those countries remain countries, there will still be people living there and they still will live in undeveloped economies that require foreign assistance to become productive.
 
If they want sustainable development, let them practice sustainable development.

Do you really think it's that simple? Do you think their governments can just decide one day that they're going to start practicing sustainable development, and everyone will live happily ever after?

Did you stop to consider WHY unsustainable development occurs in the first place?

celticlord said:
If they want an educated work force, let them build schools and have the literate teach the illiterate.

With what money? :confused:

celticlord said:
None of the problems you describe require foreign aid to remedy--and the glittering non-success of foreign aid efforts to date suggests that foreign aid merely compounds these problems.

Foreign aid has been an immense success everywhere it's been committed. The Marshall Plan in Western Europe. Macarthur's occupation of Japan. Massive influxes of development assistance to South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel. The British colonization (instead of merely the colonialization) of the Anglosphere. French and Dutch investments in Southeast Asia. American and British investments in China and India. And now Chinese investments in certain parts of Africa.

You can't judge foreign assistance in Africa to be a failure based on the pitiful amounts of assistance provided thus far. That would be like spending five minutes trying to teach a kid to read, before concluding that education was hopeless and that all children are forever doomed to illiteracy.
 
Last edited:
Do you really think it's that simple? Do you think their governments can just decide one day that they're going to start practicing sustainable development, and everyone will live happily ever after?

Did you stop to consider WHY unsustainable development occurs in the first place?
Corrupt government on the one hand failing to lead a disunited people on the other.

With what money? :confused:
Men without money but still possessing hammer, saw, and a bit of lumber can build schools.

Foreign aid has been an immense success everywhere it's been committed. The Marshall Plan in Western Europe. Macarthur's occupation of Japan.
Those were efforts to rebuilt the shattered infrastructures of otherwise functioning economies and societies, after the particular cataclysm of WWII. They have more in common with Iraq than with Africa.

You can't judge foreign assistance in Africa to be a failure based on the pitiful amounts of assistance provided thus far. That would be like spending five minutes trying to teach a kid to read, before concluding that education was hopeless and that all children are forever doomed to illiteracy.
Pitiful? $600 Billion over 45 years hardly qualifies as pitiful. In dollars donated and the time devoted, foreign aid to Africa has been considerable.
 
Corrupt government on the one hand failing to lead a disunited people on the other.

That's close...but even among African governments/societies that generally behave themselves, there is a lot of unsustainable development and environmental degradation.

Poverty causes these problems (e.g. people slashing-and-burning forests in a desperate attempt to clear enough farmland to not starve). And these problems, in turn, cause even more poverty (e.g. a lack of timber to sell and a lack of farmland due to overuse).

celticlord said:
Men without money but still possessing hammer, saw, and a bit of lumber can build schools.

If it was that simple, one would think that Western governments would've adopted that education policy for themselves by now. That's not the way an economy works. You never get something for nothing; building schools and hiring teachers cost money.

celticlord said:
Those were efforts to rebuilt the shattered infrastructures of otherwise functioning economies and societies, after the particular cataclysm of WWII. They have more in common with Iraq than with Africa.

Depends how you define functioning economies I guess. Korea was as poor as some parts of Africa prior to US developmental assistance. It succeeded largely because of a huge influx of cash that Africa never received. Israel is another good example; prior to independence, Israel was nearly as poor as most of its neighbors. But Israel received development assistance (more than every African nation combined), which has helped make Israel an economic powerhouse in the region.

celticlord said:
Pitiful? $600 Billion over 45 years hardly qualifies as pitiful. In dollars donated and the time devoted, foreign aid to Africa has been considerable.

$600 billion over 45 years is only $13 billion annually. Africa has a population of 922 million. This works out to about $14 per African per year.
 
Last edited:
That's close...but even among African governments/societies that generally behave themselves, there is a lot of unsustainable development and environmental degradation.

Not to mention that almost half the population is infected with AIDS...

Poverty causes these problems (e.g. people slashing-and-burning forests in a desperate attempt to clear enough farmland to not starve). And these problems, in turn, cause even more poverty (e.g. a lack of timber to sell and a lack of farmland due to overuse).

I've heard that education also plays into this, since a majority of the population lacks the agricultural knowledge to make sustainable crops.... This seems possible, but I'm uncertain.

If it was that simple, one would think that Western governments would've adopted that education policy for themselves by now. That's not the way an economy works. You never get something for nothing; building schools and hiring teachers cost money.

You're right though, it's not a simple problem (or even set of problems) working against the countries of Africa.

Depends how you define functioning economies I guess. Korea was as poor as some parts of Africa prior to US developmental assistance. It succeeded largely because of a huge influx of cash that Africa never received. Israel is another good example; prior to independence, Israel was nearly as poor as most of its neighbors. But Israel received development assistance (more than every African nation combined), which has helped make Israel an economic powerhouse in the region.

That's why I come from the perspective that the elites that are bringing about the 'new world order' (mentioned earlier in this thread) has no real interest in allowing Africa to become an industrialized nation.... much of this will come through the 'environmental / anti-co2' movement because Africa will have to develop itself first with 'cheaper' co2 producing machinery to create what it needs to develop more energy efficient techniques. Or an influx of cash (with no debt strings) that could create an energy efficient economy.... and well, 15$ per african per year.... I don't think that'll do much of anything.

$600 billion over 45 years is only $13 billion annually. Africa has a population of 922 million. This works out to about $14 per African per year.

However its also worth bearing in mind that this isnt necessarily a zero sum game. If we could help third world countries develop their agriculture through things like irrigation [or dare i say it: GM crops] then its easy to see how we could benefit in light of the ever rising price of food.

Unfortunately, GM crops are a part of the problem for the developping world... it creates a financial depends on Monsanto (or similar GM company) whose seeds of the crop will not sprout again (Terminator seeds).... Take the example of some north american farmers, some farmers never once had a GM crop, and then lawyers from monsanto went to them and tested their wheat and determined that they had a 'monanto' gene, and successfully sued these farmers for stealing their product. That is the practical end purpose of GM foods, it's about the CONTROL of food, and not the human benefits that they have the potential for.

Example, I might not be opposed to gene modification that would triple the yealds with the same nutritional values... but the GM products are only BARELY tested for their safe consumption by people, and I believe that ANY modification should undergo rigourous testing before being added to the food supply... who knows what could happen.

Let's use an extreme example : A type of wheat is modified for whatever reason, but when people eat it, the enzymes are so incompatible with humans that it creates cancers in about 80% of the people that eat it. Now, this product gets in the wild, and the only way to determine if the gene is in the product is with a DNA test.... You'd have to label that product as 'toxic' just to be safe.
 
$600 billion over 45 years is only $13 billion annually. Africa has a population of 922 million. This works out to about $14 per African per year.
So how much of other people's money should Africans use per year to spend their way to prosperity?

What dollar amount per year are we obligated to gift them so that they can spend their way to prosperity?

For how many years are we obligated to gift them this money? How long until they can spend their way into prosperity?

(While you're at it, perhaps you can also explain why we are obligated to make this gift, and to help them spend their way to prosperity.)
 
The purpose of the US goverment is to take care of the people in this country not to give our money to others exspecialy to others who refuse to try to help themselves. As mean as it sounds this world is not a fair place. I belive charity is a great thing but forceing others to give charity is stealing. trying to make the world a more fair place by stealing from others is not a move in the right direction
 
Back
Top Bottom