Advertisement
by Egemore » Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:07 pm
by The Third Nova Terra of Scrin » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:12 am
United States Kingdom wrote:Does Foreign Aid to Africa work? Does it help African countries that need require help? Does it help people that are living below the poverty line, etc?
Article stating it doesn't work
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123758895999200083
Article stating that it works
http://www.theguardian.com/business/eco ... aves-livesOpinion: Yeah, foreign aid has worked, in some areas that people need critical help. Nevertheless, we must be honest, and state that it hasn't worked due to numerous issues(corruption, misuse of funds, etc). There was a coup in Bukina Faso in the 1980s. The man that lead the coup, Thomas Sankara allowed Bukina Faso to reach self sufficiency in production of food a few years, and at that time, Bukina Faso was at that time one of the poorest nation in the world(it still is). Additionally, when he lead Bukina Faso, he didn't use a lot of foreign aid to accomplish the goal. That therefore shows that foreign aid doesn't work.
So what do you think NSG. Do you think Foreign Aid to Africa works?
by CTALNH » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:13 am
by Grave_n_idle » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:23 am
Parhe wrote:I agree imperialism is The root of many problems.
by Kaztropol » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:32 am
by Shilya » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:35 am
by Kaztropol » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:39 am
Shilya wrote:Anytime you ship goods to africa as part of an "aid" program, you undercut the local producers. Those no longer make profit and shut down. Now, there's even less of the product available, and the aid is needed even more. You can see where this is going, you don't even need to look at corruption.
by Kraslavia » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:45 am
by New Reutlingen » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:00 am
by Grave_n_idle » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:00 am
Shilya wrote:Doesn't work.
Anytime you ship goods to africa as part of an "aid" program, you undercut the local producers.
by Grave_n_idle » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:02 am
New Reutlingen wrote:No, it's useless. Foreign aid spent on food and medical only breeds more starving Africans which are going to eventually die off without foreign support, so I suggest to just cut it off and end the cycle now instead of delaying it.
by Dortmundia » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:04 am
by New Reutlingen » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:07 am
Grave_n_idle wrote:So, when you look at, say, West Africa - and you see three hundred and forty million people - many in dire need, your solution is 'just let them all die'?
by Grave_n_idle » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:15 am
New Reutlingen wrote:Call it harsh, but yes.
New Reutlingen wrote:With blacks having an average fertility rate at approximately 8 children per couple (I recall reading it, but I don't know where my source is- I can cite however that they are more fertile), after four generations that turns to over one-billion people.
New Reutlingen wrote:That's far more than the rich countries can care for, so it's better off to let them die off now and save more lives.
by New Reutlingen » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:21 am
Grave_n_idle wrote:I suspect you're not really understanding the literature. Perhaps the reason why people in West Africa are having more children isn't because of magical fertility, but because they keep watching their kids dying.
Europe had the same phenomenon a few hundred years ago - the amount of children each couple has has tended markedly downwards as individual life-expectancy has increased.
Which makes sense.
Certainly more sense than magical pregnancy fairies.
Or we could find a way to sustain 340 million people so that we don't have to preside over a third of a billion needless deaths.
How can letting hundreds of millions of people die 'save more lives'?
by Grave_n_idle » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:27 am
New Reutlingen wrote:Which was a paper referring to blacks in general, not blacks of any specific country. I suspect biological differences.
New Reutlingen wrote:If there are 340 million people in West Africa now, we know that they have an average reproduction rate of 8 children per couple.
New Reutlingen wrote:Within four generations of 8 children per couple, it's actually more-so over five-billion.
New Reutlingen wrote:We can't sustain over a billion people alone for the idea of "because they're human".
New Reutlingen wrote:Human or not, if they can't give back what we're giving, or contribute to society, then there is no reason to continue to send foreign aid.
New Reutlingen wrote:Bad wording on my part, but, would you rather a group of 340 million die, or a group of over a billion? If anyone is going to die, you want less deaths not more.
by New Reutlingen » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:34 am
Grave_n_idle wrote:I suspect you're misunderstanding the literature - if it even exists.
I have to admit, I've yet to meet a couple with 8 kids, black or white.
Except, as I explained - we had the same kind of phenomenon in Europe before infant morality started reducing. If the population stabilised, I doubt West African families would automatically just keep producing the 8 kids you seem to think they have.
If they can't give back what we're giving?
I don't feel like you contribute what you cost to society.
By your logic, I fully expect you to turn yourself in at the nearest euthanasia centre.
I'd rather save the 340 million and a billion. It's not a contest.
by The Third Nova Terra of Scrin » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:39 am
Shilya wrote:Doesn't work.
Anytime you ship goods to africa as part of an "aid" program, you undercut the local producers. Those no longer make profit and shut down. Now, there's even less of the product available, and the aid is needed even more. You can see where this is going, you don't even need to look at corruption.
What africa needs is honest governments and protectionism - giving it the chance to build itself up without having to compete with the global market undercutting its local industry every time. Further, likely a nationalization of resources (such as mines and oil wells), to avoid foreign corporations exploiting the continent for small change.
by The Third Nova Terra of Scrin » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:40 am
New Reutlingen wrote:I'd rather save the 340 million and a billion. It's not a contest.
You can't have both. Or, you could, and then almost every rich white country would go into poverty for the sake of people who are going to return nothing for what they've been given.
by Washington Resistance Army » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:41 am
The Third Nova Terra of Scrin wrote:New Reutlingen wrote:
You can't have both. Or, you could, and then almost every rich white country would go into poverty for the sake of people who are going to return nothing for what they've been given.
Lifting the Africans out of poverty does not necessarily mean making Europe poor. Stop making a false dichotomy here.
by New Reutlingen » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:48 am
The Third Nova Terra of Scrin wrote:Lifting the Africans out of poverty does not necessarily mean making Europe poor. Stop making a false dichotomy here.
by The Third Nova Terra of Scrin » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:49 am
New Reutlingen wrote:The Third Nova Terra of Scrin wrote:Lifting the Africans out of poverty does not necessarily mean making Europe poor. Stop making a false dichotomy here.
It's not a false dichotomy. If it was up to a select few rich countries to spend trillions of dollars to support all of these people, they're going to have some economic problems. It's not like more money will magically appear in front of them or something, if that's what you're thinking.
by New Reutlingen » Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:55 am
The Third Nova Terra of Scrin wrote:It's a false dichotomy. Why would a select few rich countries need to spend trillions of dollars to support the Africans? Is that the only way possible?
And that, money is actually an artificial construct.
by The Cakitar Trade Conglomerate » Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:09 am
by Grave_n_idle » Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:10 am
New Reutlingen wrote:Well there's no way it'd be right and the paper wrong, because race is just a social construct and we should defend that amirite
New Reutlingen wrote:Are you sure that simply because something similar happened in Europe, that the exact same thing is in Africa?
New Reutlingen wrote:Send us money back over the years that the country stabilizes,
New Reutlingen wrote:...contribute technological advances to the world.
New Reutlingen wrote:Big talk for a person of your type, no?
New Reutlingen wrote:Besides, I'm still underage-
New Reutlingen wrote:Why thank you for that heart-warming comment.
New Reutlingen wrote:You can't have both. Or, you could,
New Reutlingen wrote:...and then almost every rich white country would go into poverty for the sake of people who are going to return nothing for what they've been given.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ariddia, Big Eyed Animation, Cavirfi, Crucia, Emotional Support Crocodile, Likhinia, Saint Norm
Advertisement