aid kills
Here's something that should surprise absolutely no one paying attention:
I'll say here what Shikwati won't say quite as bluntly:
Foreign Aid is always presented as helping the people of a nation, but it never does. Even the IMF has had to concede this.
The money goes (1) to the governments that rule over the people of a nation -- often brutally -- in return for redirecting the money (2) to Western political capitalists in the form of large capital purchases.
That's right: Foreign Aid is colonialism abroad and corporate welfare at home. It strengthens the worst political players in Africa and the worst political players back here.
Well-intentioned people need to take more responsibility for consequences!
I also find Live 8 to be repulsive and ironic from an ethical perspective. It is a very disturbing development. Twenty years ago, I was in a London hotel room watching Live Aid. Back then, Bob Geldof and company were asking for private donations (which may have been damaging, but at least they were voluntary), but Live 8 specifically says on their website that they don't want my money! What they want is my support in petitioning governments to tax and spend more. They don't want my voluntary support in any traditional sense. What they want is for me to help them get involuntary support. If that isn't the perverse-but-logical consequence of the democratic ethos, I don't know what is.
Finally, there is the economic absurdity at the foundation of this whole thing. Forget politics, forget ethics for a moment. What is the basic claim?
To quote Geldof, "This is without doubt a moment in history where ordinary people can grasp the chance to achieve something truly monumental and demand from the 8 world leaders at G8 an end to poverty."
Anyone who thinks more money can somehow end poverty doesn't know the first thing about either money or poverty. Perhaps if Geldof took some time off to study the nature of wealth-creation and value, he would do far less damage to people who are already suffering.
Thanks to James Waddell on blog.mises for this pointer."For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"
SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...
Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.
SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.
Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.
SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?
Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.
I'll say here what Shikwati won't say quite as bluntly:
Foreign Aid is always presented as helping the people of a nation, but it never does. Even the IMF has had to concede this.The money goes (1) to the governments that rule over the people of a nation -- often brutally -- in return for redirecting the money (2) to Western political capitalists in the form of large capital purchases.
That's right: Foreign Aid is colonialism abroad and corporate welfare at home. It strengthens the worst political players in Africa and the worst political players back here.
Well-intentioned people need to take more responsibility for consequences!
I also find Live 8 to be repulsive and ironic from an ethical perspective. It is a very disturbing development. Twenty years ago, I was in a London hotel room watching Live Aid. Back then, Bob Geldof and company were asking for private donations (which may have been damaging, but at least they were voluntary), but Live 8 specifically says on their website that they don't want my money! What they want is my support in petitioning governments to tax and spend more. They don't want my voluntary support in any traditional sense. What they want is for me to help them get involuntary support. If that isn't the perverse-but-logical consequence of the democratic ethos, I don't know what is.
Finally, there is the economic absurdity at the foundation of this whole thing. Forget politics, forget ethics for a moment. What is the basic claim?
To quote Geldof, "This is without doubt a moment in history where ordinary people can grasp the chance to achieve something truly monumental and demand from the 8 world leaders at G8 an end to poverty."
Anyone who thinks more money can somehow end poverty doesn't know the first thing about either money or poverty. Perhaps if Geldof took some time off to study the nature of wealth-creation and value, he would do far less damage to people who are already suffering.
2 Comments:
hi there,
I agree with you on the point that aid handouts hardly ever work. More often than not they lead to corruption, and only benefit the corrupt regimes that have power in the poverty stricken nations. However, i also believe that aid can work, if it is implemented properly. Aid programs need to be set up which are aimed at setting up the basics in communities such as water and housing, and then teaching people how they can stay out of poverty without further help.(ie. teach them good agricultural techniques). What we need to do is to convince people of betters ways to give their aid, as opposed to telling them to stop giving their aid. Please get back to me,
Thanks,
Alex.
http://www.makepovertyhistory-ideas.blogspot.com/
It never ceases to amaze me that whenever the topic of socialized funding comes up, otherwise rational Americans suddenly suck themselves into their shells of conservative fiscal ideology. I suspect you have a problem with foreign aid because it triggers the same reaction you might have discussing taxes (the aversion to which is uniquely American among the world's liberal, leftist, and libertarian thinkers).
Do you really mean to suggest that it's better for everyone involved if nobody receives aid? That the third world economies should be left to their fates and that out of the crucible of starvation, coruption, and infrastructural choas a healthy, vibrant (or perhaps you prefer "free enterprise") economy will be forged? Give me a break.
I don't mind if people don't want to contribute their money towards cheritable ends - I think you're stingy assholes for it, but it's your money and you have the right to do with it as you please. However, please don't try enoble your own greediness by inventing "problems with charity". It may make you sleep better at night but it's dishonest and insulting to everyone else.
As far as I'm concerned, the recently popular "Foreign Aid Hurts More Than It Helps" trope, recently feuled by this "celebrated" report
(http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/Aid_&_Development_final_embargo.pdf),
even if you accept it's conclusions, points only to two truths:
1)the aim of US foreign aid programmes is not in fact humanitarian in nature, but self-servingly economic - their success is judged on whether or not the United States has been able to establish trading markets for the near or remote future. I'm sure very few American commentators would agree that the foreign aid poured into South Korea in the 1960s and 70s was hurtful to the South Koreans - it also doesn't hurt then that South Korea is now one of the US's biggest trading partners. No wonder then it is never brought up by critics of foreign aid (or the report cited above). When successful foreign aid programmes do not produce US trade venues, such as the near decade of development and medical aid given to Cuba by the EU and Canada, they are criticized as a failure.
2) Some forms of foreign aid are not beneficial. Yawn. Handing essentially blank cheques to the dictors of Khazakstan, as the US Government has been doing since the invasion of Afganistan, is bad for the development of democracy in Western Asia? Well no shit. We should cease all forms of foreign aid then because you've demonstrated this? Please.
Post a Comment
<< Home