Does Foreign Aid to Africans Work?

[New Reutlingen]

I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean.

Did you intend to go back and edit it to make sense, and then you just forgot?

I'm implying that simply because you disagree with me, that I'm not wrong, nor is the paper.

Europe had high infant mortality and low longevity, and when those things stabilised the amount of children per family directly reduced.

Because they understood that they had a future to look forward to?

Money isn't that important.

Mind if you give me all of your credit card info and mail me your money, since it's not that important?

Tools.

I'd hardly call a sharpened rock a useful tool.

Libraries.

I don't see how the "invention" of a library is at all useful.

Bladed weapons.

Last I heard, they were still using spears and sharpened stones in the village parts of Africa.

Art. Jewellery.

Useless.

Education.

Not an invention.

My type?

People who post and act like you, and share the same mindset.

So you've contributed nothing.

By your logic, it's okay to let you die.

No, because I still plan to contribute to society, and until I am 18 I have nothing to contribute to society. Therefore, I do not have to die, especially since I can eat a meal three times a day, and enjoy my electricity and hot water without foreign aid.

The blacks in Africa, unless they are going to contribute something or give back, they do not have the right to this aid. If they plan on giving back, then aid is slightly understandable.

Well, glad we sorted that one out.

I don't see why this comment was at all necessary, when you know that there was more to the sentence.

In other words, you justify billions dying, because it makes your standard of living a little better.

Spot on.

[Prassia]

I think the Africans are just a lost cause.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm implying that simply because you disagree with me, that I'm not wrong, nor is the paper.

This 'paper' probably doesn't even exist.

And, as your interpretation of facts in this thread has shown, if it DOES exist, you probably didn't understand it.

Because they understood that they had a future to look forward to?

For whatever reason - when longevity increases, and infant mortality lowers - number of offspring per family reduces.

Mind if you give me all of your credit card info and mail me your money, since it's not that important?

Why would I? By your own logic, since you're contributing nothing, you deserve nothing.

I'd hardly call a sharpened rock a useful tool.
I don't see how the "invention" of a library is at all useful.
Last I heard, they were still using spears and sharpened stones in the village parts of Africa.
Useless.
Not an invention.

I've already ascertained that your personal value system is not meaningful.

People who post and act like you, and share the same mindset.

Tell me more about these 'people'.

I'm wondering who exactly you thought 'people like me' were, before you starting backing away from it and hiding yourself.

No, because I still plan to contribute to society,

What you 'plan' is irrelevant.

and until I am 18 I have nothing to contribute to society.

That's your choice. Mozart was already an established composer by the time he reached age 6.

Therefore, I do not have to die, especially since I can eat a meal three times a day, and enjoy my electricity and hot water without foreign aid.

On the contrary, you're living ENTIRELY on aid being provided by someone else.

Spot on.

Then why waste time with all that pretence?

[Grave_n_idle]

I think the Africans are just a lost cause.

There are several possible, workable solutions. Some better than others.

Throwing our hands up and saying 'well, we didn't really try anything - there's nothing more we can do' shouldn't be considered one of them.

[Shilya]

Doesn't work.

Anytime you ship goods to africa as part of an "aid" program, you undercut the local producers.

When you ship food to an area where there's no food, you're not undercutting the local producers, because they don't have any food.

There is food, just not enough food. But once the local farmers that still exist have to compete with $0 food, they go under. Then there really is no food.

But you can look at things like infrastructure - which is why 'modern' infrastructure groups try to do things like build infrastructure out of locally sourced materials. I've even seen schools being built from sand in desert regions - because that's what's there.

What does it matter where the material comes from? If they don't have the funds required to keep the school repaired and running, they could be building it out of good intentions and love, and it still wouldn't help. Also, I'm pretty sure africa has some construction industry - who then doesn't get the job.

[Parhe]

I agree imperialism is The root of many problems.

Not really.

The real problem is exploitation.

If you're an American company trading in goods that are an available resource in Africa, you'll pay the minimum you can to get those goods, and sell them at an enormous profit in the States.

Foreign Aid is helping to stop some people from literally dying of starvation and disease, but there is a global industry absolutely devoted to maintaining grinding poverty in Africa.

Well, I cannot really comment on Africa. My research on imperialism has mainly been the effects of Japanese imperialism in East Asia (Korea, Manchuria, Northern Japan, Ryukyus, and Taiwan) so I tried to limit the problems I know of. The only part that can be debated, I suppose, is on what constitutes "many," though I mentioned before I believe imperialism cannot be pointed to as the source (directly, at least) of all or most of Africa's problems existing to today.

As for imperialism in Africa being the root of corruption and tribalism (root of partly, at least) I took the other posters' words for it, since I assume they have looked a lot into the issue. And, assuming it is true, I assumed corruption is in part the cause of exploitation (rather, the corruption presumably caused by imperialism leads to easier exploitation by foreign, and domestic, forces).

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

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?

Is that your argument? Should we completely drop the concept of money, which has worked for thousands of years, only to let more people be birthed that are going to die from starvation or disease?

And that, money is actually an artificial construct.

Well, X is just a Y construct because I don't like it, and therefore even the idea of it should not exist.

Money cannot solve all the world's problems.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Not really.

The real problem is exploitation.

If you're an American company trading in goods that are an available resource in Africa, you'll pay the minimum you can to get those goods, and sell them at an enormous profit in the States.

Foreign Aid is helping to stop some people from literally dying of starvation and disease, but there is a global industry absolutely devoted to maintaining grinding poverty in Africa.

Well, I cannot really comment on Africa. My research on imperialism has mainly been the effects of Japanese imperialism in East Asia (Korea, Manchuria, Northern Japan, Ryukyus, and Taiwan) so I tried to limit the problems I know of. The only part that can be debated, I suppose, is on what constitutes "many," though I mentioned before I believe imperialism cannot be pointed to as the source (directly, at least) of all or most of Africa's problems existing to today.

As for imperialism in Africa being the root of corruption and tribalism (root of partly, at least) I took the other posters' words for it, since I assume they have looked a lot into the issue. And, assuming it is true, I assumed corruption is in part the cause of exploitation (rather, the corruption presumably caused by imperialism leads to easier exploitation by foreign, and domestic, forces).

The problem of "imperialism" in Africa is non-existent since the extractive institutions put by the European colonial powers are now hijacked and taken by African dictators and money-hungry rulers themselves. People fail to notice that fellow corrupt African politicians and leaders just replaced the roles once taken by the European colonizers, much like what had happened in Latin America.

[Grave_n_idle]

There is food, just not enough food. But once the local farmers that still exist have to compete with $0 food, they go under. Then there really is no food.

If you have enough food for a thousand people, and a population of a million, market forces are never going to fix that problem without a lot of people dying.

Indeed, if you look at somewhere like Ethiopia, for example - 'market forces' actually work in exactly the opposite direction, with the tiny minority that can afford to buy (or have the power to compel) food taking all of it.

The idea that undercutting the local competition is a bad approach to dealing with famine is silly.

What does it matter where the material comes from?

I'll quote you: "Anytime you ship goods to africa as part of an "aid" program, you undercut the local producers".

If the material is locally sourced, you're not shipping goods to Africa.

If they don't have the funds required to keep the school repaired and running, they could be building it out of good intentions and love, and it still wouldn't help.

As I mentioned, specifically, building sand buildings - the region may run out of a lot of resources... sand is not going to be one of them.

And if you built all of the shelters in a town out of sand, and if the locals can continue to maintain them with a local commodity - how would having shelters [i]not[/i help?

Also, I'm pretty sure africa has some construction industry - who then doesn't get the job.

Why are you 'pretty sure' of that?

And if there are local construction engineers - why wouldn't they get the job?

You seem to base a lot of your judgement on the future of Africa on unsupportable assumptions.