Really, I'd like to hear a suggestion for a way that disbursement of goods and funds could be made to those in need of help.
Tell me how to take care of these "junkies" without depleting the coffers of my country, a country which at no point in history signed a document to "save the world".
An IMF loan is better than wishing for a better system. It is an immediate solution.
What's your solution?
You're not allowed to put forward another wry comment without some suggestions for a better way of giving
Really, I'd like to hear a suggestion for a way that disbursement of goods and funds could be made to those in need of help.
Tell me how to take care of these "junkies" without depleting the coffers of my country, a country which at no point in history signed a document to "save the world".
An IMF loan is better than wishing for a better system. It is an immediate solution.
What's your solution?
You're not allowed to put forward another wry comment without some suggestions for a better way of giving</strong><hr></blockquote>IMF loans would be fine if they did not come with stipulations other than just interest and your basic loan agreement stuff. Unfortunately, they have an enormous amount of specific trade demands, which, in the not very long run, amount to the destruction of local economies . . . this is done through the innundation of markets with American government subsidized goods as well as stipulations that gaurantee corporations the use of local labour on fenced-in 'bases' that are not taxed (stipulated as such) and with workers that are not paid nearly what they should be.,
I would not be against these loans if they did not have these seemingly calculated imbalances as stipulations.
rather than having loans that empower the borrower to build an infrastructure and to make their industry thrive and competative, you end up with markets swamped with cheaper goods, destroyed local industry and people so poor that they have to work at sunstadard wages in factories that are not sharged taxes for their production.
These are all done in the name of 'fee trade'?!?!?
So, my system would be to have loans that allow for certain amount of balancing tarrifs and demanding taxes on any industry and the removal of any similar stipulations that, in effect, destroy local economies and production rather than empower them.
[quote] As another example, Bill Gates announced in November 2002 a massive donation of $100 million to India over ten years to fight AIDS there. It has been big news and very welcome by many. Yet, at the same time he made that donation, he was making another larger donation -- over $400 million, over three years -- to increase support for Microsoft's development suite of applications and its platform, in competition with Linux and other rivals. Thomas Green, in a somewhat cynical article, questions who really benefits, saying "And being a monster MS [Microsoft] shareholder himself, a 'Big Win' in India will enrich him [Bill Gates] personally, perhaps well in excess of the $100 million he's donating to the AIDS problem. Makes you wonder who the real beneficiary of charity is here." (Emphasis is original.)
India has potentially one tenth of the world's software developers, so capturing the market there of development platforms is seen as crucial. This is just one amongst many examples of what appears extremely welcome philanthropy and charity also having other motives. It might be seen as horrible to criticize such charity, especially on a crucial issue such as AIDS, but that is not the issue. The concern is that while it is welcome that this charity is being provided, at a systemmic level, such charity is unsustainable and shows ulteria motives. Would Bill Gates have donated that much had there not been additional interests for the company that he had founded? When it comes to government aid, these concerns can multiply as it may affect the economic and political direction of an entire nation if such government aid is also tied into political objectives that benefit the donor.
And, as we will see further below, some aid has indeed been quite damaging for the recipient, while at the same time being beneficial for the donor. <hr></blockquote>
also notice:
[quote] However, even though the charts above do show U.S. aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the people of America is far more impressive than their government. As discussed further below, the government spending has tied agendas that has often been detrimental to the recipient. Private aid/donation in contrast has been through charity on individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas -- more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion: <hr></blockquote>
so even if the US DID stop giving aid... private citizens still would...
would this change anything other then less people getting aid?
Comments
Really, I'd like to hear a suggestion for a way that disbursement of goods and funds could be made to those in need of help.
Tell me how to take care of these "junkies" without depleting the coffers of my country, a country which at no point in history signed a document to "save the world".
An IMF loan is better than wishing for a better system. It is an immediate solution.
What's your solution?
You're not allowed to put forward another wry comment without some suggestions for a better way of giving
<strong>And your solution Dr, Kissinger?
Really, I'd like to hear a suggestion for a way that disbursement of goods and funds could be made to those in need of help.
Tell me how to take care of these "junkies" without depleting the coffers of my country, a country which at no point in history signed a document to "save the world".
An IMF loan is better than wishing for a better system. It is an immediate solution.
What's your solution?
You're not allowed to put forward another wry comment without some suggestions for a better way of giving</strong><hr></blockquote>IMF loans would be fine if they did not come with stipulations other than just interest and your basic loan agreement stuff. Unfortunately, they have an enormous amount of specific trade demands, which, in the not very long run, amount to the destruction of local economies . . . this is done through the innundation of markets with American government subsidized goods as well as stipulations that gaurantee corporations the use of local labour on fenced-in 'bases' that are not taxed (stipulated as such) and with workers that are not paid nearly what they should be.,
I would not be against these loans if they did not have these seemingly calculated imbalances as stipulations.
rather than having loans that empower the borrower to build an infrastructure and to make their industry thrive and competative, you end up with markets swamped with cheaper goods, destroyed local industry and people so poor that they have to work at sunstadard wages in factories that are not sharged taxes for their production.
These are all done in the name of 'fee trade'?!?!?
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
So, my system would be to have loans that allow for certain amount of balancing tarrifs and demanding taxes on any industry and the removal of any similar stipulations that, in effect, destroy local economies and production rather than empower them.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>there's a chart of a few interesting bits here.
<a href="http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=c"; target="_blank">http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=c</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
this is interesting as well:
[quote] As another example, Bill Gates announced in November 2002 a massive donation of $100 million to India over ten years to fight AIDS there. It has been big news and very welcome by many. Yet, at the same time he made that donation, he was making another larger donation -- over $400 million, over three years -- to increase support for Microsoft's development suite of applications and its platform, in competition with Linux and other rivals. Thomas Green, in a somewhat cynical article, questions who really benefits, saying "And being a monster MS [Microsoft] shareholder himself, a 'Big Win' in India will enrich him [Bill Gates] personally, perhaps well in excess of the $100 million he's donating to the AIDS problem. Makes you wonder who the real beneficiary of charity is here." (Emphasis is original.)
India has potentially one tenth of the world's software developers, so capturing the market there of development platforms is seen as crucial. This is just one amongst many examples of what appears extremely welcome philanthropy and charity also having other motives. It might be seen as horrible to criticize such charity, especially on a crucial issue such as AIDS, but that is not the issue. The concern is that while it is welcome that this charity is being provided, at a systemmic level, such charity is unsustainable and shows ulteria motives. Would Bill Gates have donated that much had there not been additional interests for the company that he had founded? When it comes to government aid, these concerns can multiply as it may affect the economic and political direction of an entire nation if such government aid is also tied into political objectives that benefit the donor.
And, as we will see further below, some aid has indeed been quite damaging for the recipient, while at the same time being beneficial for the donor. <hr></blockquote>
also notice:
[quote] However, even though the charts above do show U.S. aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the people of America is far more impressive than their government. As discussed further below, the government spending has tied agendas that has often been detrimental to the recipient. Private aid/donation in contrast has been through charity on individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas -- more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion: <hr></blockquote>
so even if the US DID stop giving aid... private citizens still would...
would this change anything other then less people getting aid?