"Give them a democratic and capitalistic government and soon we won’t have to send them any more aid.”
Would you care to give some examples to substantiate this bold claim?
Mark - 12:09pm on 09/01/2005
2H9 -
If, hypothetically speaking, the UN was satisfactorily transparent and accountable, would you support Chirac’s plan?
Or do your objections go beyond its lack of accountability?
P.S. Dumb question, but is that picture you?
Mark - 01:09pm on 09/01/2005
Fuck No! And yes! Boy was playing with the new digi camera, figured that was as good a gravatar as any pics we had. We have large enough problems with holding local government accountable for how they miss use tax money. When you involve non-elected entities into the mix, you are asking for trouble.
2Hotel9 - 01:09pm on 09/01/2005
We gave France their freedom, they pissed it away. Thanks Charles! As for imposing any form of tax at the international level, who, exactly, is going to be held accountable for it’s use? The U.N.? Please try to be realistic. They can’t even account for their per diem budget. The E.U.? They can’t even find their collective ass with both hands. Who? Exactly.
2Hotel9 - 01:09pm on 09/01/2005
Would you care to give some examples to substantiate this bold claim?
I didn’t know the virtues of capitalism and democracy needed substantiating. I mean, they’ve only worked every time they’ve been tried.
Rob - 03:09pm on 09/01/2005
Let me try and craft and response.
There are many capitalist, democratic countries in Africa whose citizens are in a far worse position than those of New Orleans. You don’t want to ‘dump money’ on the Africans because capitalism and democracy is all they need.
Well, let me throw that claim back at you and see how consistent you are.
How about halting all aid to New Orleans? After all, they already have democracy and capitalism.
I am not being facetious. Millions of Africans who live in capitalist, democratic countries (believe me, they do exist) live in intolerable conditions, each and every day, every bit as bad as what we see now in New Orleans. Their country might be ravaged by aids, or suffering the consequences of decades of civil war.
Now you suggest that aid is not the answer to their problems.
I suggest you are talking bunkum.
Mark - 02:09am on 09/02/2005
2Hotel9. Mark, there are democratic governments in Africa. There also are dictators and tribal cliques that masqurade as democracy and are rife with corruption. And then their is Zimbabwe. There are countries that don’t suck down trainloads of foreign aid and are building their own societies. Others are in complete collapse and no amount of money is going to change that until the corrupt officials are rooted out and actual democracy is allowed to take hold.
Wifey - 03:09am on 09/02/2005
There are many capitalist, democratic countries in Africa whose citizens are in a far worse position than those of New Orleans. You don’t want to ‘dump money’ on the Africans because capitalism and democracy is all they need.
Well, let me throw that claim back at you and see how consistent you are.
How about halting all aid to New Orleans? After all, they already have democracy and capitalism.
Well, first of all, which countries receive the most in aid? The democratic ones (those that actually are democratic, not just pretend to be) or those dominated by an oppressive regime?
Second, I have no problem providing aid to nations that are truly democratic. That wasn’t my point. My point was that providing aid to nations that aren’t democratic is an exercise in pointlessness.
I think you need to re-read the post, because you’re not understanding. The problem was never with aid for democracies, but rather aid for dictatorships and rogue states. It is my firm belief that any country that becomes a true democracy and embraces capitalism can raise itself out of poverty to the point where they won’t need any more aid.
Now you suggest that aid is not the answer to their problems.
I suggest you are talking bunkum.
I think that if you would go and re-read the post you’d see that I am most certainly not talking bunkum, rather I’m suggesting that tacit support not be given to dictatorships through international aid. Let them free their people from political oppression, then we’ll help.
Rob - 06:09am on 09/02/2005
Well Rob, I have re-read your post and, forgive me, you were nowhere near that explicit.
“First of all, dumping money on third world countries isn’t going to solve a thing. These places don’t suffer from a lack of funding, we’ve been dumping billions upon billions of dollars in aid on them every year.”
You use the blanket term ‘third world countries.’ No distinction is made between democracies and dictatorships/totalitarian regimes. The result is either a) you are implying that all third world countries are tyrannies, or b) none deserve aid. Either way, your comment deserves correction.
“In fact, given the history of sending aid to developing countries, I’d say that the people who benefit the most from this kind of aid is the crackpot dictators and oppressors who are in charge of these places.”
Ditto. In fact this sentence directly implies that all developing countries are ruled over by ‘crackpot dictators and oppressors’. Which is far from the case.
At no point do you distinguish between democracies and dictatorships - in fact, you do the complete opposite, and tar all third world countries with the same brush, suggesting that all of them (even the democracies) do not deserve aid (or at least that aid will be thrown away) -
“what [third world countries] need is a change in leadership”.
That is far too sweeping a statement to escape without criticism.
While your welcome follow-up comments make your position more clear, there is no denying that these clarifications were absent from your initial post.
In truth, I think you and I (probably) broadly agree here -
A) I don’t think aid is the only solution to Africa’s problems.
B) I think that once countries are sufficiently well off, aid should most likely stop.
C) By no means should aid just get handed to dictatorships - at the very least, it should be carefully targeted at citizens within those dictatorships.
If your initial post had made the points in your above comment, I would not have objected.
Mark - 07:09am on 09/02/2005
Mark,
In light of your comments I have added an update to the post to clarify my position on international aid, though I wonder how many of the countries currently receiving the majority of international aid are truly democratic and capitalistic (and not just labeled as such).
Also, you may want to read the opinions on international aid held by this Kenyan economist.
"Give them a democratic and capitalistic government and soon we won’t have to send them any more aid.”
Would you care to give some examples to substantiate this bold claim?
2H9 -
If, hypothetically speaking, the UN was satisfactorily transparent and accountable, would you support Chirac’s plan?
Or do your objections go beyond its lack of accountability?
P.S. Dumb question, but is that picture you?
Fuck No! And yes! Boy was playing with the new digi camera, figured that was as good a gravatar as any pics we had. We have large enough problems with holding local government accountable for how they miss use tax money. When you involve non-elected entities into the mix, you are asking for trouble.
We gave France their freedom, they pissed it away. Thanks Charles! As for imposing any form of tax at the international level, who, exactly, is going to be held accountable for it’s use? The U.N.? Please try to be realistic. They can’t even account for their per diem budget. The E.U.? They can’t even find their collective ass with both hands. Who? Exactly.
I didn’t know the virtues of capitalism and democracy needed substantiating. I mean, they’ve only worked every time they’ve been tried.
Let me try and craft and response.
There are many capitalist, democratic countries in Africa whose citizens are in a far worse position than those of New Orleans. You don’t want to ‘dump money’ on the Africans because capitalism and democracy is all they need.
Well, let me throw that claim back at you and see how consistent you are.
How about halting all aid to New Orleans? After all, they already have democracy and capitalism.
I am not being facetious. Millions of Africans who live in capitalist, democratic countries (believe me, they do exist) live in intolerable conditions, each and every day, every bit as bad as what we see now in New Orleans. Their country might be ravaged by aids, or suffering the consequences of decades of civil war.
Now you suggest that aid is not the answer to their problems.
I suggest you are talking bunkum.
2Hotel9. Mark, there are democratic governments in Africa. There also are dictators and tribal cliques that masqurade as democracy and are rife with corruption. And then their is Zimbabwe. There are countries that don’t suck down trainloads of foreign aid and are building their own societies. Others are in complete collapse and no amount of money is going to change that until the corrupt officials are rooted out and actual democracy is allowed to take hold.
Well, first of all, which countries receive the most in aid? The democratic ones (those that actually are democratic, not just pretend to be) or those dominated by an oppressive regime?
Second, I have no problem providing aid to nations that are truly democratic. That wasn’t my point. My point was that providing aid to nations that aren’t democratic is an exercise in pointlessness.
I think you need to re-read the post, because you’re not understanding. The problem was never with aid for democracies, but rather aid for dictatorships and rogue states. It is my firm belief that any country that becomes a true democracy and embraces capitalism can raise itself out of poverty to the point where they won’t need any more aid.
I think that if you would go and re-read the post you’d see that I am most certainly not talking bunkum, rather I’m suggesting that tacit support not be given to dictatorships through international aid. Let them free their people from political oppression, then we’ll help.
Well Rob, I have re-read your post and, forgive me, you were nowhere near that explicit.
“First of all, dumping money on third world countries isn’t going to solve a thing. These places don’t suffer from a lack of funding, we’ve been dumping billions upon billions of dollars in aid on them every year.”
You use the blanket term ‘third world countries.’ No distinction is made between democracies and dictatorships/totalitarian regimes. The result is either a) you are implying that all third world countries are tyrannies, or b) none deserve aid. Either way, your comment deserves correction.
“In fact, given the history of sending aid to developing countries, I’d say that the people who benefit the most from this kind of aid is the crackpot dictators and oppressors who are in charge of these places.”
Ditto. In fact this sentence directly implies that all developing countries are ruled over by ‘crackpot dictators and oppressors’. Which is far from the case.
At no point do you distinguish between democracies and dictatorships - in fact, you do the complete opposite, and tar all third world countries with the same brush, suggesting that all of them (even the democracies) do not deserve aid (or at least that aid will be thrown away) -
“what [third world countries] need is a change in leadership”.
That is far too sweeping a statement to escape without criticism.
While your welcome follow-up comments make your position more clear, there is no denying that these clarifications were absent from your initial post.
In truth, I think you and I (probably) broadly agree here -
A) I don’t think aid is the only solution to Africa’s problems.
B) I think that once countries are sufficiently well off, aid should most likely stop.
C) By no means should aid just get handed to dictatorships - at the very least, it should be carefully targeted at citizens within those dictatorships.
If your initial post had made the points in your above comment, I would not have objected.
Mark,
In light of your comments I have added an update to the post to clarify my position on international aid, though I wonder how many of the countries currently receiving the majority of international aid are truly democratic and capitalistic (and not just labeled as such).
Also, you may want to read the opinions on international aid held by this Kenyan economist.