• 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!

Can we build it? Yes we can!

Should we develop such a described program to build infrastructure in poor countries?

  • Yes, it would put many people to work

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Yes, we should help countries in need

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, it will bring the world long-term prosperity

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, other/general

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sounds nice, but I don't know...

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • No, we don't have a moral imperative to help other countries

    Votes: 6 33.3%
  • No, that's socialist

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, for economic reasons

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • No, for practical reasons

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • No, other/general

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Total voters
    18

gavinfielder

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
756
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
In another discussion the idea was brought up of building infrastructure in poor, undeveloped countries.

How much do we like this idea?

First of all, let's set the parameters of a hypothetical program.
  1. The materials for all construction projects, when possible, MUST be provided by private companies of the program's home country. This ensures that the money spent on resources for the program will be put back into the home country's economy, and it also ensures that the project won't consume all of the foreign nation's limited resources.
  2. Adequate food must be provided by the home country, preferably also by private companies--at the sites, of course, trading, buying, or selling food with locals would be fine.
  3. The program must only employ citizens of the home country, and for each a limited amount of time.
  4. The form and method of payment of workers is up for discussion--that's a complex issue.

Before you respond, please make sure you understand this. Arguing about government spending is completely inane because the government prints money (at least, the US government does, and most here are in the US)--now, this proposal is a much more economically complex idea because it potentially involves somehow controlling inflation in two different economies at once. That's what we need to be thinking about.

And also, of course, its effects on our economy, the foreign nation's economy, how many people it would employ, and whether or not it's simply a good thing to do. Costs and benefits.
 
Last edited:
lets fix america first please. we have problems incase no one noticed. time to stop the foreign aid.
 
lets fix america first please. we have problems incase no one noticed. time to stop the foreign aid.
I should have seen that argument coming quick. This was originally from a discussion on, essentially, how to employ low-skill labor in a high-skill economy.

A lot of America's problems lie in unemployment, which this is a viable way to fix. There is that consideration.

And, the conservatives would be happy to leave our own infrastructure to private companies, and since we're so developed, that could be an option. It's definitely not an option for poorer countries.
 
I should have seen that argument coming quick. This was originally from a discussion on, essentially, how to employ low-skill labor in a high-skill economy.

A lot of America's problems lie in unemployment, which this is a viable way to fix. There is that consideration.

And, the conservatives would be happy to leave our own infrastructure to private companies, and since we're so developed, that could be an option. It's definitely not an option for poorer countries.

not for me man. we've given aid out the butt for decades. it's time to let china/russia/india/brazil these new super economies take the lead on developing. we can spend the ~50,000,000,000 a year we usually spend on foreign aid on a public works/infrastructure program, in america.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Works_Administration
^a model.
 
not for me man. we've given aid out the butt for decades. it's time to let china/russia/india/brazil these new super economies take the lead on developing. we can spend the ~50,000,000,000 a year we usually spend on foreign aid on a public works/infrastructure program, in america.

Public Works Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^a model.
Indeed. The PWA was amazing.

The problem with doing it here, though, is that it's socialist. :p They said it then too, they'd say it again. You're going to get a lot of arguments against it simply for the fact that here at home, private companies can be doing all that work.
 
Indeed. The PWA was amazing.

The problem with doing it here, though, is that it's socialist. :p They said it then too, they'd say it again. You're going to get a lot of arguments against it simply for the fact that private companies can be doing all that work.

fine they need to do it. now. if not then get out of the way and the government will. we need investment now. whether it's taxes or private industry paying for it. doesnt really matter. investment here in america.
 
fine they need to do it. now. if not then get out of the way and the government will. we need investment now. whether it's taxes or private industry paying for it. doesnt really matter. investment here in america.
I agree 100%. If investment at home can happen, it should be happening now.
 
I don't think it's really "aid" in most cases. I think it's loan sharking on a international governmental scale. We won't "help" anyone who doesn't have a resource we covet.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: John Perkins
 
I don't think it's really "aid" in most cases. I think it's loan sharking on a international governmental scale. We won't "help" anyone who doesn't have a resource we covet.

when you say it like that, let the aid flow.
 
In another discussion the idea was brought up of building infrastructure in poor, undeveloped countries.

How much do we like this idea?

First of all, let's set the parameters of a hypothetical program.
  1. The materials for all construction projects, when possible, MUST be provided by private companies of the program's home country. This ensures that the money spent on resources for the program will be put back into the home country's economy, and it also ensures that the project won't consume all of the foreign nation's limited resources.
  2. Adequate food must be provided by the home country, preferably also by private companies--at the sites, of course, trading, buying, or selling food with locals would be fine.
  3. The program must only employ citizens of the home country, and for each a limited amount of time.
  4. The form and method of payment of workers is up for discussion--that's a complex issue.

Before you respond, please make sure you understand this. Arguing about government spending is completely inane because the government prints money (at least, the US government does, and most here are in the US)--now, this proposal is a much more economically complex idea because it potentially involves somehow controlling inflation in two different economies at once. That's what we need to be thinking about.

And also, of course, its effects on our economy, the foreign nation's economy, how many people it would employ, and whether or not it's simply a good thing to do. Costs and benefits.

I support assisting poor countries with building infrastructure. It's a very worthwhile investment that pays for itself many times over. With that said, I couldn't disagree more with your method of doing so. The materials, food, and workers should come from wherever it exists at the cheapest price possible. This ensures that the country gets the maximum amount of benefit from their infrastructure by keeping costs low.

If we want to help other countries with their infrastructure, then let's help other countries with their infrastructure. Protectionism has precisely the opposite effect.
 
We need to fix our problems at home, first.
 
I should have seen that argument coming quick. This was originally from a discussion on, essentially, how to employ low-skill labor in a high-skill economy.

A lot of America's problems lie in unemployment, which this is a viable way to fix. There is that consideration.

And, the conservatives would be happy to leave our own infrastructure to private companies, and since we're so developed, that could be an option. It's definitely not an option for poorer countries.

How does your program employ Americans if the programs are supposed to be sustained and implemented by citizens of the countries in which the work is performed? Further, it takes money OUT of our economy, thereby hurting OUR GDP.
 
How does your program employ Americans if the programs are supposed to be sustained and implemented by citizens of the countries in which the work is performed? Further, it takes money OUT of our economy, thereby hurting OUR GDP.
I don't believe I said the program would be sustained and implemented by citizens of the foreign country.

And it puts money into our economy. By buying from the home country, it's economic stimulus.

I support assisting poor countries with building infrastructure. It's a very worthwhile investment that pays for itself many times over. With that said, I couldn't disagree more with your method of doing so. The materials, food, and workers should come from wherever it exists at the cheapest price possible. This ensures that the country gets the maximum amount of benefit from their infrastructure by keeping costs low.
What costs?
 
i'm for transitioning the US global role to a humanitarian one. however, when it comes to infrastructure, we have to fix our own house first.
 
In another discussion the idea was brought up of building infrastructure in poor, undeveloped countries.

How much do we like this idea?

First of all, let's set the parameters of a hypothetical program.
  1. The materials for all construction projects, when possible, MUST be provided by private companies of the program's home country. This ensures that the money spent on resources for the program will be put back into the home country's economy, and it also ensures that the project won't consume all of the foreign nation's limited resources.
  2. Adequate food must be provided by the home country, preferably also by private companies--at the sites, of course, trading, buying, or selling food with locals would be fine.
  3. The program must only employ citizens of the home country, and for each a limited amount of time.
  4. The form and method of payment of workers is up for discussion--that's a complex issue.

Before you respond, please make sure you understand this. Arguing about government spending is completely inane because the government prints money (at least, the US government does, and most here are in the US)--now, this proposal is a much more economically complex idea because it potentially involves somehow controlling inflation in two different economies at once. That's what we need to be thinking about.

And also, of course, its effects on our economy, the foreign nation's economy, how many people it would employ, and whether or not it's simply a good thing to do. Costs and benefits.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph. STOP IT!!!!! No, hell no, absolutely no. We have our own infrastructure to take care of. What the hell is wrong with people?? Do you even PAY any taxes?? Really, that's just beyond the pale.
 
I don't think it's really "aid" in most cases. I think it's loan sharking on a international governmental scale. We won't "help" anyone who doesn't have a resource we covet.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: John Perkins

Woow, glad you got national interests figured out.
 
What costs?

The costs of getting lower-quality materials and/or workers just because they happened to be located within a particular nation. If we want to help countries build up their infrastructure, why do we need protectionist restrictions on what workers can be hired and where the materials can come from? Just get the best stuff at the lowest price. That leaves more money left over for improving the infrastructure.
 
Jesus, Mary and Joseph. STOP IT!!!!! No, hell no, absolutely no. We have our own infrastructure to take care of. What the hell is wrong with people?? Do you even PAY any taxes?? Really, that's just beyond the pale.

Gawd, pay taxes? Is that really how low we've stooped? He pays taxes anytime he buys anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom