When you hand money over to someone to help with their problems you expect to see some of their problems resolved. If I give you money for food then I expect to see food in your fridge. If you need money to keep your lights on then I should see lights on in your house.
I agree 100% with this.
If this analogy is meant to be illustrative of Africa, then why don't we just look at Africa instead for greater accuracy?
The way I see it is this; Western governments give African governments aid money. African governments then misuse that aid money (Governments misusing funding? Whoda thunkit?!)
But African governments pay back their loans. Maybe not totally, not yet, but the deeper into debt they go, the more they pay back over a longer length of time. A debtor is more profitable, which is why, although much repayment money has been abandoned by the West, Africa has never had the slate wiped clean.
Don't drive up to my place looking for food and light money because you spent it on fixing your car or had to pay a fine. It's the same with this African aid. Feed the hungry children. Nice cause but how many people get fed? You give $100. $20 goes to administrative fees. $40 goes to government protection from the rebels fighting them in the mountains. $15 to build roads needed to get to the people. Another $25 for transportation of the food. When is all said and done people still aren't getting fed. As heart breaking as it may be, it comes to a point where enough is enough. As an individual you just chuck it up as a loss and move on. As a nation it's like,"Hey Mr President, what the fuck is going on here? A billion from me, a billion from him, a billion from 14 other nations. Why aren't your people being fed?" Multiply that times 26 other African nations and what do we have? A money dump. Still after 35 years, the world is made to feel guilty for starving Africans.
You're right. We should leave them to it. Without us holding their hands the Africans will be forced to grow up, overthrow their leaders and sort themselves out.
Never gonna happen though; becuase our governments love supporting despots in Africa in order to get at all those lovely resources (Mali?) which we use to create clouds of pollution in the West.
Another problem caused by Capitalism.
Who pulls out first? USA be the bad guy? Russia and let the Chinese buy it all up? How much more should the EU pump in? We all abandon and let the oil rich middle east take over the continent? Sure there are interests now. The world has sunk trillions of dollars in there.
I see how you could say USA would be the bad guy for pulling out, but I honestly believe that everybody should.
The chinese and Indians have bought much of it up, but much like the English in India, they will only leave the place poorer.
I'm unaware of any Russian involvement in Africa at current.
The EU should pump in no more.
Let the Middle East try their luck in Africa. Let them throw money into the money pit, why should we car?
So wait, you're saying that because we've sunk trillions in, there are interests there and we should sink trillions more in? I thought you were all for cutting aid to Africa?
You're right, you did mention the USA and that was what I meant. Please forgive my aging eyes for missing it in your block of text.
Never ask me for forgiveness call me a syphalitic whore and tell me you love me.
I'm not ridiculing your theory. I'm actually interested and my only point was that I was looking for some sort of trending. That isn't where you were heading and I'm fine with that as a discussion.
The trend seemed clear to me, please show me where I was wrong?
Tough for me to get behind, but interesting theory.
Interesting theory? Yes. Tough to get behind? Absolutely, I understand that. It's just a theory.
Like evolution.
And global warming.
Not a bad way to sum it up. Need to have them take care of the first couple of teirs of Maslow's hierarchy on their own before they can move on.
Africa recieves about $60 billion a year in foreign aid which is nonthing for U.S., EU, and and other developed countries combined. Total foreign direct investment in Africa is atleast $80 billion. They've been sending foreign aid; instead, of troops to many of the hot spots in Africa. A few trillion over the years is still less costly then decades upon decades of nation building. The West can came it's helping ease Africa's problems and then look the otherway. I would cut all foreign aid unless the African governements let us track the aid. Also I would increase the a foreign aid to countries that agreed to that arrangement.
The African governments obfuscate where the aid is going and we don't care, so long as we get resources and a promise of repayments, which over time will work out very profitable.
When an individual goes into debt, that debt ends with their death. Sending a nation into debt is much more profitable however; nations don't have such short lifespans and can inherit debts (eg the Russian Federation inherited the debts of the Soviet Union)
After all, why do you think the Western world, the richest part of the world, is in debt?
But both of our ideals will never happen. Africa is just to important for the west to abandon it. Its natural resource wealth is to great to abandon it to our friendenemies. Its also home 1/4 of al the world's muslims.
If that's adressed to me, I want to know what you deem my ideal to be.
