For nations that have a surplus, why not? as long as the people agree with it. As for the US, we would have to borrow money, since we have no surplus. Given that, I would rather see the money we do borrow go to some good and not to Halliburtons pockets.
Because when the government gives it, it becomes politicized. Home and abroad. The aid gets diluted or misdirected, and it's all a puppet show. Organizations like the Red Cross have transparent reporting, and provide a lot of bang for the buck.
I have mixed feelings on this. I do think foreign aid is reasonable in some situations but I also would like to see more money put towards education & health care as I think they are the basis of a truly rich society.
How is it reasonable to take money from Americans, and give it to other people, when there are millions on food stamps and thousands of veterans living on the streets?
In the context of a competitive world environment and more specifically the rising competition to access vital natural resources that can fuel an economy this article is relevant: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/20080530TDY04304.htm Japan is in the midst of hosting a meeting with leaders of African nations. Japan is pledging billions of dollars of foreign aid, joint development agreements and other incentives to various African nations. This follows recent efforts by India this year and China previously in which African nations are being courted to create separate and unique agreements in which these large Asian economies and nations have access to invaluable and increasingly rare and growingly more expensive vital natural resources. These are the resources that fuel economies. The targeted efforts by these Asian nations follow similar efforts by Russia to access natural resources. In a competitive world economy, this strategy is twisting former methods of world trade but are creating a new dynamic for access to raw materials. Eliminating foreign aid in this capacity would be the equivalent of drastically weakening the American economy. Its as if America decided to play by totally different rules that essentially said...."we are weak and incapable....and we don't care what the rest of you do." Foreign aid may be beneficial. It may be pouring money down the drain. It may pull money from the US that could be used domestically for better results. It does have an impact vis a vis other nations. To eliminate this mechanism as an expression of reducing the size of government is essentially ignoring the realities of a world at large.
Nonsense. This is a nonsense argument, perpetuated in the "you don't understand the bigger picture" type response. Taxes are theft. If they were not collected under penalty of law, they would likely not be contributed willfully by the working class. To take by coercive power, or to debase the currency by debt monetization to send money abroad for political purposes is immoral. You seem to think that reducing government is about being an anti-statist. Only as a means to an end. Liberty. Governments don't protect liberty. Liberty is man's natural condition. Governments exist to infringe upon and limit liberty. PS, you have been issued a public challenge. Be a man and step up to the plate. ~
If I ran a large business in the United States that employed lots of people and depended on resources from Africa I'd be very concerned about that issue. Frankly the employees of my business should be similarly concerned as should their families and the communities in which they live. If I can't individually compete with the businesses from China, Japan, or India because those nations are supporting their businesses and nobody is helping me similarly I'm at a big disadvantage. Ooops. There goes my business. There goes my ability to compete economically. Of course it matters in the real world. It only doesn't matter in a theoretical world. If one poses this thread under the effort and partial information provided that simply juxtaposes foreign aid against keeping the money in my own pocket then one offers others a simplistic and naive view of the issue. If one presents a topic in such a way simply to create a scenario wherein the two simple choices are "keep the money in my pocket or just throw it and give it away.....versus....use my money strategically and with purpose to increase my capabilities....then people open their eyes to different perspectives. btw, there is nothing moral or immoral about governments. That is not a fact. Its an opinion. I suppose only billions of people would object with that statement or simply be dumbfounded by it. You know who makes statements like that. The mother of Rebecca Walker, who was so invested in her political philosophy that she couldn't deal like a normal human....and thereby lost the opportunity to take part in normal human interactions which generally fill individuals with a greater sense of self by being part of something that is bigger than the individual and is a reflection of a community. btw....I typically ignore juvenile actions like challenges. Its part of the growing up process that most learn in the course of interacting in humanity.
This is a fallacy unless you are a bad businessman. Besides, how important is it for you to be in business, if we have to spend taxpayer money to keep your supply lines open? Sounds like a corporate conflict of interest with the public trust. The reality is, if goods from Africa are hard to come by, it's time to charge more, develop new supply lines or get into another industry. No corporate welfare to keep losers in business, rain or shine. Simplistic, naive. A lot of Ad Hom. Where is the meat Earl? Present a rational argument, not appeals to emotion, ignorance framed by anecdotal legends. It's not keep money on one's own pocket Earl. You're purposely twisting the argument, or being intentionally obtuse. The difference is between politicians deciding where to send the money, and citizens deciding where to send the money. We already know, and have known for generations, that much of foreign aid is wasted, lost or used against the very people we intended to help. I know that is your opinion. The idea of challenging your beliefs appears to be firewalled from your brain. Perhaps as a defense mechanism. That said, "the state" has murdered more people in the last 300 years than the Christian, Islamic and Judaic religions combined. Heck, 600,000 died in the Civil War, fighting over the Union and the right of secession. If either of us has something in common with Alice Walker, it's you. You're the one locked into an ideology, and incapable of broadening your horizons to see a bigger picture, absorb new information, or adapt to new circumstances. You're not stupid, but you will make stupid arguments to justify your positions, past and present. Remember when I asked you how many innocent civilians have a right to die so that you may live, and you couldn't answer, instead choosing to dodge? That's a moral dilemma, since you support the Clintons and pay lip service to being for resolving the Iraqi situation peaceably. Because while you mumble it over, pretending that you are really feeling bad for the people being murdered under policies your people implemented, it's stalling. You can't ask for an immediate withdrawal because that indicts the policies you've supported in the past, and yet you have to play the game of pretending you're really concerned about chaos if the withdrawal is too hasty because you can't be seen as an enthusiastic supporter of Iraqi genocide. Because that is what it is. Genocide, starting with Clinton's policy of starving 500,000 young Iraqi children to death, murdering an entire generation. And the sad thing is, that like Thomas Jefferson keeping slaves, because he couldn't afford to be away from them, even though he knew slavery was immoral, you're chained to your inability to admit you have been wrong. Right, but stalking me on the forum, telling me I need a break, talking junk about my family, that's part of your maturity? You didn't dodge the challenge because you're too principled. It's because I exposed you for being a hypocrite. Because the record will show that while you argue for me to leave the forum, I'm pretty much the only reason for you to post. Without me, you've got nothing to say. Here's an idea Earl. Since you chickened out on taking the challenge (which would have exposed you as a forum stalker anyways), how about you read what I write and try to understand it, without challenging it from a position of ignorance and misunderstanding.
This is a very specific real life experience occurring right now. Three large nations and economies are taking new aggressive steps to ensure the health and well being of their economies. They are using foreign aid as one of the linch pins of this strategy. These three nations, Japan, India,and China compete directly with the US in many critical areas. Their actions in trying to create special relationships with these African nations that supply enormous amounts of raw materials is challenging existing modes of international trade and likewise putting them in position to dominate world industries. I am sure most Americans with any sense of economics would be horrified with your commentary. In the face of these challenges it would suggest that well developed businesses and industries that provide higher level production, expertise and overall wealth development would wither and die. It could devastate certain industries. If that were the case it would lead to a loss of wealth creation. That very scenario flies in the face of the pronouncements you make, asserting that only "capitalism" creates wealth...with your idea of capitalism being business without any government interaction. It would leave native businesses less capable of competing. Lots of theory, very little practicality.
Earl, I had to truncate my response. You write a lot without saying much. It's tedious trying to reply line by line, because you can post 4 straight lines without a single point, just rambling opinion. Such as? When? How? Subjective, implies correlation as causation. This is false. Germany recovered fastest, by avoiding western influence and adopting laissez-faire. Please specify what aid and where it worked. Is this happening right now? Was Saddam a winner, but now a loser? What about Pakistan? Saudi Arabia and their 9/11 terriorists. Are these the winners you are building? Taliban winners? Iran and the Contras? Winners? What about Al Queda? Is that one of our success stories? Please tell us where the winners are. Actually, the post war boom had more to do with the return of capital goods to the private sphere, and that women entered the workplace. Do you have any proof to substantiate your claim? Proof? Let's try this again. Guerilla is not too fond of any governments. Guerilla hates being robbed of the fruits of his labor under threat of kidnapping. Guerilla values individual liberty. I take it you like government, you like being robbed and you dislike being free? Now before you reply back with another 1,100 words, try answering the questions I posed (marked in bold).
The problem with giving foreign aid is not only does it neglect our own poor and impoverished but it allows elements of our government to use covert operations to change the leadership in foreign leadership in other countries and uses that as an excuse to keep funding a minority leader with us not knowing what the heck is going on. Case in point is when we covertly took out the democratically elected mossadegh and installed the puppet shah and we kept funding his survival throughout the 50's 60's and 70's . If our policy was no foreign aid there would be no incentive to mess up another country like he destroyed iran. This is a no brainer.
The problem with your response, Guerilla, is that you didn't resond to the example. Your initial response would piss off an endless number of people. GIVE UP. It would destroy many elements of business within the US. The most significant raw material from Africa currently is oil. It is a very significant level of oil imports into the US and prior to the actions by China, Japan, and India was expected to grow significantly faster than imports from the middle east. Okay cut back on imports and prices rise some more. That would be great for the US economy. Increase the price of oil some more. The impact this year is having a devastating impact on the US economy. Drive the price up more per Guerilla's policy ideas in a real world scenario. That would further devastate the economy. Somehow your ideas don't hold weight in the real world and a world of tough competition. We import significant levels of minerals and chemicals. Eliminate those and .....OOOPS.....there go some other critical industries. All because of some theory that doesn't hold weight in the real world. Why don't you try and discuss economics in a real world context. Pingpong: I would say that over the history in the 20th century and into this century foreign aid in the Middle East has shown no great success vis a vis establishng common grounds of interest and developing greater relationships with the Arab world and the Muslim community. At one point American foreign aid acted as a counterbalance to Soviet foreign aid. It was part of a world dominated by two super powers competing for relationships with different nations. I have already agreed that it doesn't work all the time, yet it has worked some of the time, despite Guerilla's efforts at rewriting history above with regard to Europe. Also, lets not kid ourselves. The Guerilla theory would be to not redistribute the money saved from foreign aid to the poor, imporverished, and sick in this country. He doesn't believe in that. Maybe you'd like to see it. His idea would be to take the estimated $30 billion, return it to taxpayers and essentially put an extra $100/year in your pocket. I suspect you'd $100 as using his formula in the example I cited and one which he didn't touch in his last response, gas prices would rise and certain industries competitng for other raw materials with Japan, China, and India would wither and die, creating a greater level of economic problems.
Earl i dont know much about the last part of what you commented on in your last post but lets comment on this statement "I would say that over the history in the 20th century and into this century foreign aid in the Middle East has shown no great success vis a vis establishng common grounds of interest and developing greater relationships with the Arab world and the Muslim community." Developing greater relationships with the arab world and the muslim community??????????? If you mean by that installing brutal dictators that destroyed democracy and subjagated 95% of the population to facism and horrible suffering. We didnt help those countries out of the bottom of our hearts. Now if this was the american people, then yes i would believe that we would care for them with good intentions, but the american people arent the same as the american government.
Pingpong: NPT's comments are correct. The emphasis should be on the word NO. Attitudes toward American government in the Middle East Arab nations stinks. I suspect they have gotten worse during the Bush administration. On the other hand, those that have wanted peace have probably appreciated American efforts in peace proposals that have had mixed results in the middle east. Its interesting that the Bush effort on the Middle East doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Meanwhile there are direct talks between Syria and Israel in and assisted by Turkey.
Pingpong: NPT's comment is correct. The emphasis should be put on the word NO. Attitudes toward American government in the Middle East generally s*ck. I think this administration has been especially heavy handed. Its interesting that the Bush effort at helping in a peace effort between Palestinians on the West Bank and Israel isn't going anywhere right now. Meanwhile Syrians and Israeli's are speaking directly in and through the assistance of Turkey. Hopefully those efforts make progress.
Earl, you wrote 1100 words without offering anything tangible outside of conjecture and speculation. What example? I'm not interested in winning applause points or having the masses agree with me. I only want to be "right". How? That's fine. Market conditions shift. As do prices, supply and demand. The market seeks equilibrium. It will find footing on it's own, regardless of what changes come about. Believing that the government can control global markets, is nearly as silly as believing that the government can stop global warming. We're talking about thieves, lawyers and adulterers, not God. How would my policy ideas drive up oil? Do you really believe our foreign aid to Africa (which amounts to what, $5 billion tops?) really buys us cheap oil? I suppose you also believe that the 4,000 dead, 20,000+ injured and $500 billion in Iraq is helping keep oil cheap? Devastate the economy. Nonsense. What is devastating the economy, is that oil prices doubled in Europe, but tripled in the US, because the FED has been inflating the money supply,. and destroying the US dollar on foreign exchange markets. You can't solve that with foreign aid. On the contrary, foreign aid may be what is driving up the monetized debt, which is reserved through open market operations and triggers fractional reserve banking.... WHY NOT? Well first you said it was untried, then you said it didn't work. Now you are saying it doesn't hold weight. Are you descended from someone who argued adamantly with Columbus about whether the earth is round? Why not try to back up any of your statements with proof or deductive reasoning? Start with everything I am marking in bold. Surely if you believe what you are writing, there must be some reason which has led you to these beliefs? Yeah, like my rewriting history and America started the Vietnam war, which cost more than American 60,000 lives. Woah there cowboy. Maybe since you are having trouble explaining or justifying your own opinions, you might want to slow up on trying to tell the world what I think. First, I would like to speak to the poor and impoverished, attempt at emotional blackmail rhetoric by Earl. Earl's wonderful socialism, and government redistribution efforts have accomplished the following. From the 1960s to today, poverty has fallen 0.4%. Despite throwing billions of dollars at it, to the tune of maybe a trillion dollars or more, the War on poverty has been the same sort of abject failure as the war on drugs, the Vietnam war, and the Iraq war. So before I get lectured about throwing more money at the poor, in what is an ineffectual welfare effort that does not tangibly decrease the poor.... But I digress. I would put the money to domestic needs (as would Ron Paul) before anyone would be put in the street. Of course, it is unconscienable for bleeding heart liberals to send aid taken from the mouths of our 10% living in poverty and send it to nameless, faceless foreign governments to spend on weaponry (like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel) while conditions in those countries continue to languish for the most disadvantaged. When Earl talks about helping Africa, it's not because he feels bad for Africans, but because he wants to bribe regional governments in a mercantilistic race for natural resource supremacy against India and China. Oh to cry poverty, and be such a grand hypocrite. Somewhere in hell, Woodrow Wilson is smiling. This entire notion of prices rising continuously, unchecked, is totally without economic merit. Competition will either result in higher prices, changes in demand, or changes in supply. The higher the price, the lower the demand. The lower the demand, the lower the price. Market Equilibrium. Read it. Learn it. Know it.
Ah....your reference to China and India shows you know exactly of what I speak. You forgot to mention Japan. Their meeting with African national leaders was the last of three large nations competing for access to natural resources. And possibly you recall this comment you made relative to the competition for ever scarcer natural resources and the ability of businesses within the US to compete for these resources against nations that are buttressing their efforts to obtain them. I'm sure those that believe in strengthening the American economy, keeping jobs, creating wealth, and helping the economy to flourish would have great faith in your arguments and a strong belief that you are "right" I'm sure those that lost their jobs because in your view competing on an equal footing in the real world isn't appropriate would have a lot of faith in your being "right". As to some of your other comments ....typical misquotes and use of absurd exaggeration in your effort to defend allowing competitive industries to wither and die because you don't think a government should step in to help...or in this case compete. For instance.... I never used the term or implied governments can control global markets. So you believe everyone in government are thieves, lawyers and adulterers. My goodness....you have a sick perspective of the people who continue to work in a government. Since your man Ron Paul is part of the government, and I know he isn't a lawyer...by your definititon he is either a thief or adulterer. Which one is it? They are your words. And then you ask..... I suppose you don't understand because you are stuck in an economic theory that has not been applied in the current complex real world by a large diverse nation. I'll explain it again to help you. Its very real world and relies on human interaction. It might be difficult to comprehend these foreign concepts. If so, I suggest you reread and probably go visit some real people who work in real businesses with others. China, India, and Japan are raising the competitive environment in the competition for access to natural resources. They have held large conferences with the leaders of African nations and pledged both economic development and foreign aid for greater access to natural resources. They essentially are acting in a way to corner the market. In that competitive market either the US steps up to meet that competitive environment or loses access. It is called competition. If oil, as an example is removed from the free market concerns and moved directly to any or all 3 of those nations it leaves less oil on the open and available market. Ah...that takes us back to supply and demand. I know you understand that. Less supply means higher prices. As to your comments with regard to the fact that your theories are untried and they don't hold weight. Both are true. As to your comments about Vietnam. Last I recall France was fighting the communists in Vietnam way before the US got involved. My suggestion is go reread history. Just so you know Guerilla, I worked in markets. I spent over 2 decades doing so. I worked in commercial real estate. Real estate is often described as an imperfect market. Products are not fungible and information is not made available to all participants. Its control is vital to establishing pricing. Commercial real estate markets are less perfect than residential markets. I suggest you work in markets also. Then go preach about markets. You would be dramatically more believable.
A couple of comments need to be rebutted simply because they are not true. I repeat that America did not start the war in Vietnam. The French were fighting long before the American's got involved. Somehow I find that comment reflective of the claims that Clinton killed 500,000 Iraqi children. They seem to reflect a pattern of taking an event in the world and loading all blame on America regardless of the actions of others or the reality of history. 2. Not true. Look it up in Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia, before the Johnson inspired legislation from the earlier 1960's the poverty level was calculated at about 19%. Per Joe Califano who was a cabinent secretary at the time and one of the chief administrators of these efforts the poverty level at the time was about 22%. By the end of the 1960's the poverty level was reduced to about 12% and there it has sat between 12-13% between then and now. The anti poverty programs were essentially weakened thereafter. Anyway you look at it the brief period during which the anti poverty program was developed and grown, it reduced the percentage of the population that fell below the poverty level by approximately 1/3 or 1/2 depending on which statistics and starting point one assumes. That is significant in that its real meat as a program only existed until 1968. 3.
How you went O-fer on this post is absolutely mind boggling. Vietnam never attacked America. America false flagged the Gulf of Tonkin, to create the pretext of war with Vietnam. The French have nothing to do with what Johnson did. Source Also, Clinton did murder 500,000 children with Food for Oil, that is per the UN. Madeline Albright even said she thought the deaths were "worth it". Source 1 Source 2 Thanks for proving my point about the War on Poverty. In 40 years, 0.4% progress has been made. And yet you champion this as some great government achievement. Btw, what started the big gains in the war on poverty (around 1964) was Americans scattering outside the country to avoid the draft, and 60,000 American lives being needlessly wasted in a false flag Vietnam war. Nothing like killing off the population to reduce unemployment. Re: Women http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/goldin/files/worldwarII.pdf You did state that there were economic reasons why we must use foreign aid to compete against japan, China and India. Not compassionate reason, economic reasons, or rather mercantilism. You tried to use mercantilism as justification for foreign aid, so please don't lecture me on changing the topic or re-stating something you now claim you did not write. In light of how I just refuted you 4 times, perhaps you should take your own advice. Unfortunately, I don't see one discussion area in this forum where you could claim the competency to lecture anyone. And I am still waiting responses to your conjecture and unbacked statements. If you would like an opportunity to recover some intellectual honesty, let me know and I can list the numerous unsourced, totally arbitrary opinions and comments you have portrayed as fact.