Slash foreign aid contribution

mikemac

Afaik, we are commited to giving 0.7% of GBP in foreign aid.
Did we commit to a treaty or can we go back on this?

According to this link, Ireland spent 815 million euro in 2007 on foreign aid. Seems a collasal sum to me and I'm wondering who it be better spent at home on education or the health service.
http://www.rte.ie/arts/2007/1116/bono.html

Where that money goes and does it get swallowed by corruption, I don't realy know.
But there is no doubt that some of that money is wasted and ends up in a Swiss bank account.
And we have given money since before Live Aid and we can give money for the next twenty years but I don't see the problems going away.
Maybe let the former colonial powers take more responsibility if you feel it is our duty to help.

So, imo if you want to give to charity it should an individual choice and when you pay taxes it's a reasonable expectation the government will spend them in the state or in the EU. We never got a choice on this.

I fully expect to be flamed by some but it's an interesting topic, any opinions?

gurramok

Giving aid money to nuclear powers like India/Pakistan except in disaster situations is wrong imho.
Some of the former colonial powers have cancelled some 3rd world countries debt due to campaigning which i think goes a long way to helping the citizens of an affected country rather than throwing money at the problem.

Is there public knowledge on where this 0.7% goes to?

davejones

gurramok wrote: »

Giving aid money to nuclear powers like India/Pakistan except in disaster situations is wrong imho.
Some of the former colonial powers have cancelled some 3rd world countries debt due to campaigning which i think goes a long way to helping the citizens of an affected country rather than throwing money at the problem.

Is there public knowledge on where this 0.7% goes to?

That's a very good question!
800 or so million euro is an awful lot of money.

Time Magazine

Wail a little louder, it will aid to the hysteria. We're spending €15bn a year on health. Do you not think this is enough?

40% of the world live on less than $2 a day. Really, cop onto yerselves. It's literally less than 1% of our income. It's about as much, as a nation, we spend on the Lotto.

Gurramok, you'll be glad to hear we don't give to nuclear powers except in disaster situations. We have "partnered" with these countries, places like Zambia and Lesotho where the life expectancy is under 40.

Thankfully, the government are smart enough to see that as little money as possible is wasted. The partnered countries were specifically chosen, can be un-partnered easily and with Irish Aid very visible in those countries, the people will know why if they up and leave. They spend the money in the least-corruptible ways possible. Case in point: my next door neighbour (I live in college in Dublin) is Ethiopian and is having his fees and board paid for by Irish Aid as part of a Human Resource Improvement Programme. The idea? He learns his trade here and goes home. That's hard to corrupt.

And we've already reneged on our word of 0.7% on GNP - which we agreed to as part of the UN's Millennium Development Goals, saying that the five thousand under-5s who die each day of diseases like diarrhea that they can wait another five years before we give them what we said we would.

Jimbo

Its almost unimaginable, us, a wealthy first world country, giving 0.7% of our money to starving children. OUTRAGOUS! Grow the hell up people. The more people have, the more selfish they get. It should be alot more than 0.7%.

davejones

micmclo wrote: »

Afaik, we are commited to giving 0.7% of GBP in foreign aid.
Did we commit to a treaty or can we go back on this?

According to this link, Ireland spent 815 million euro in 2007 on foreign aid. Seems a collasal sum to me and I'm wondering who it be better spent at home on education or the health service.
http://www.rte.ie/arts/2007/1116/bono.html

Where that money goes and does it get swallowed by corruption, I don't realy know.
But there is no doubt that some of that money is wasted and ends up in a Swiss bank account.
And we have given money since before Live Aid and we can give money for the next twenty years but I don't see the problems going away.
Maybe let the former colonial powers take more responsibility if you feel it is our duty to help.

So, imo if you want to give to charity it should an individual choice and when you pay taxes it's a reasonable expectation the government will spend them in the state or in the EU. We never got a choice on this.

I fully expect to be flamed by some but it's an interesting topic, any opinions?

Yeah you got Flamed:)

Jimbo

Burn

gilroyb

That 0.7% commitment was signed up to in the 1970's by all countries. So far I think that at most five countries in the world have met it. Ireland isn't one of them. We plan to reach it by some time around 2012 or 2015.

Irish Aid chooses select partner countries carefully and tries to make a real difference in these few countries. It is one area where Ireland can make a major impact on the world stage because of the abject poverty of those it works with. If you want some information on it you can read the departments own website, http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/about.asp. Alternatively you could study the issue and be frequently surprised at the frequency of the references to Ireland as a real force for positive and accountable change in developing countries.

mikemac

davejones wrote: »

Yeah you got Flamed:)

I knew I would but it's good to have debate.

Tbh, I'm impressed with the goverment after reading posts here.
I thought they got 800 million and found maybe 50 countries and wrote a cheque and that's the last we ever saw of it.
Throwing money at a problem......like our health service you might say

It's good to have it monitored so closely in a few select countries.

However in an economic downturn it's a tempting place to cut and I would not be suprised if it was.

Jimbo, it may be only 0.7% to you but it's over 800 million which is a hell of lot of money all the same.

Jimbo

Can you imagine the amount of lives you could save, the amount of suffering you could quell with €800 million per annum?

Time Magazine

micmclo wrote: »

However in an economic downturn it's a tempting place to cut and I would not be suprised if it was.

On this point, there are separate accounts for "non-negotiable" expenditure like the wages of the judiciary. Fine Gael have called for development aid placed in this bracket.

InFront

As Ibid pointed out, suggesting that we are spending too much money on overseas development aid is ridiculous since it is not a whole lot of money when offset against the cause, all things considered.

My only concern might be how effectively that money is being spent. Some people might recall that following the Asian Tsunami, the government gave €18 million to 34 different organisations - each of course with their individual administration costs. Indeed the aid program itself has been chronically understaffed, with administration costs that have been considered to be "too low" (~1%). When you have badly administered central funds being spread out to organisations with high individual admin. costs, that's a pretty effective way of losing money.

However, I understand that the Government have now invested in a management firm to look more specifically at how the money is spent, thus hopefully maximising effect from the funds.

Mr.Micro

When we were considered a third world country not so long ago,we received EU grants in the millions for development and farming ,year in and out .We took it all,no questions asked and I believe much of it never saw the light of day as it was purloined ,hence the lack of infrastructure that such money was for.

Who are we now to resent helping others less fortunate than ourselves .Yes some of it may be corruptly taken and so on ,(no strangers to corruption here are we?) but our intentions are good and thats what matters .

Mick86

jimbo78 wrote: »

Its almost unimaginable, us, a wealthy first world country, giving 0.7% of our money to starving children. OUTRAGOUS! Grow the hell up people. The more people have, the more selfish they get. It should be alot more than 0.7%.

How much finds it's way to hungry children and how much into the Swiss Bank accounts of Third World Dictators?

Jimbo

I agree they need to be very careful what they do with the money, but that a terrible excuse to reduce the amount of foreign aid we give

gandalf

It would make more sense to cut the wastage in the civil service than cut foreign aid. I think the very idea that a thread like this was started speaks volumes about how selfish this country is getting.

gbh

Well the OP raises an interesting and long debated question, is aid any good and what conditions if any should be put on aid. Clearly you have to be very careful when you give aid to a country that you know what the situation is in that country. An example of aid that went disastrously wrong was the aid the French government under Mitterand gave to the Hutu government in Rwanda, both before and after the genocide. Clearly giving money to a corrupt regime could lead to the strengthening of that regime as happened with Mobutu and which in turn lead to the wars to overthrow him.

And throwing aid money at the problems will not help either. It is not enough to pay for healthcare, education or even famine relief when as used to be the problem with countries like Ethopia or Erithrea, they were run by dictators who were more interested in spening money on war and feeding their armies than feeding their people. You have to try and get those governments to act responsibily first.

So 0.7% sounds good and it sounds popular. But you need to start looking for governments in the developing world to get their act together before you give them even more aid. It would be like throwing good money after bad if not.

Time Magazine

Honestly, gbh, do you think the people in Irish Aid are that stupid? Do you know anything about what they do?

Crash

Ah now, Ibid, to be honest, with the high admin costs and the general apathy that people have towards the current government re: money handling, you can understand some skepticism as to how they hand out their money.

For instance, i have no issue with the .7 percent, but would like to know how it breaks down and what areas it goes to, and everyones entitled to know that. on top of that, i'd personally like to know how much of that money goes to admin costs and how much makes it way down to the people, cus charities can be an easy way to make big wages.

InFront

çrash_000 wrote: »

i'd personally like to know how much of that money goes to admin costs

At the moment it's about 1.2%, though I think that's projected to about double in the coming year as a result of a white paper outlining how to better manage the aid fund to minimise "investment" in inefficient NGOs.

edanto

Yeah man, real easy places to make big wages.

fxks sake.

There aren't many industries, nonprofit and movies are two that come to mind, where people give up their free time to work together to do something.

What does that tell you? There's huge competition for jobs with charities that pay enough to earn a crust and you can be sure that most of the people in the top jobs would earn well more applying the same management skills to a forprofit enterprise.

Same time, I welcome micmclo's thread - there's not a lot of media coverage of where the aid goes (although Far Away Up Close is moving to prime time next season), but my own experience of it is that it's well spent.

It goes without saying that throwing money at a problem won't make it go away, and the problem of the vast inequalities in wealth distribution need a political fix - but that requires more people to give a sh1t and take some action - if they want to. This year Irish Aid have increased the amount that they're spending on awareness in Ireland, but it's still the type of information that you really have to seek out. The big stories aren't really in the news in any great details.

Here's an example. Can you imagine if 6,000 children died around the world tomorrow because of a problem with a contaminated vaccine? Big news, right?

Well, why in the hell isn't it news that a similar amount of kids die every day because they don't have immunisation? Let's be clear - no-one is saying that the third of the world that get by on two euros or less a day should all be given apartments with balconeys and stayplations, just that as a society, we should go out of our way to make sure that everyone has some basic entitlements and opportunities.

And that's what the eight hundred million or so gets spent on. If anyone thinks that money, on the whole, is wasted, you should really get out of the West and go visit a 'developing' country.

/rant

sovtek

Mick86 wrote: »

How much finds it's way to hungry children and how much into the Swiss Bank accounts of Third World Dictators?

How much of the health budget finds it way into the pockets of the upper echelons of the HSE?

Fratton Fred

We could bin a few of the Tribunals, that would save a fortune. Then we could cut over emploment and under utilisation in the Public Sector, that would save abit more.

cavedave

Ibid
We're spending €15bn a year on health. Do you not think this is enough?

Thankfully, the government are smart enough to see that as little money as possible is wasted.

The government cannot spend money efficiently on our health care system so they are unlikely to be able to spend money successfully on someone elses.

I am with Adam Smith on this one. We should remove all trade taxes with the third world as that is likely to be a lot more efficient then taxing their trade then giving them back this money after it travels through two sets of governments.

gbh

Of course western politicians play a very cynical game on this. On the one hand they want to be popular with our farmers and subsidise them. On the other they give aid to the third world.

The Irish Aid people may not be that stupid, i didn't say that. I was talking in general that Aid has to be targetted in the right way. Unfortunately I only see Aid plugging gaps in developing world budgets. You look at countries like Malawi which is dirt poor, yet recently every one of the top judges, quite a number really, were awarded state cars to keep them from going on strike. In no developed country in the world is any of the judiciary givin publicly funded cars.

In Swaziland the king uses public money to build vast palaces. Yet there is no free press as there is in ireland to criticise him

There was another example recently of a country getting aid, but then spending a lot of money on a military air defence system.

The problem here is that Irish people are not getting value for money. Aid must be an investment with returns. The increased spend mustn't be to continually plug the budgets of countries where there is no real reform of the political system.

edanto

The examples you're quoting sound like serious wastes of money and abuse of trust and we can all agree that they're bad.

In terms of measuring the 'return' of the investment in aid - how would you propose that the impact of aid is measured?

If you were in charge of the aid programme, which countries would you cut off from Irish Aid, why, and then where would you spend the money?

cavedave

The congo is 1/60 as wealthy as the USA
because of education it is 1/2 as wealthy
because of infrastructure it is 1/2 as wealthy
the difference between being 1/60th as wealthy and 1/4 is caused by corruption.

It is impossible for an outside country to fix a corrupt government, police service, legal system etc. What you can do is free up trade coming from all countries so you are not contributing to the poverty of these countries. You could base aid based on how corrupt a country is to encourage honesty but if a dictator is willing to impovrish his people he is unlikely to stop if the incentive to do so is that you will make his people less poor.

djpbarry

micmclo wrote: »

Jimbo, it may be only 0.7% to you but it's over 800 million which is a hell of lot of money all the same.

€813 million per annum works out at about €3.69 per week for every person in the country. You couldn't buy a pint in a Dublin pub with that. Do you still think it's a "hell of a lot of money"?

walshb

djpbarry wrote: »

€813 million per annum works out at about €3.69 per week for every person in the country. You couldn't buy a pint in a Dublin pub with that. Do you still think it's a "hell of a lot of money"?

I do and that's not really a fair comparison is it.
How many in Ireland actually earn money when
expenses are taken out, like food, bills, mortgage etc etc..
How many people work in Ieland?
There are serious problems here in Ireland and I'm
sick to the teeth hearing about cutbacks everywhere.
Ireland is simply being suckered into all this
foreign aid by the Bono's, Geldof's GOAL's, Concern's
and Clinton's of this world. Its all big big business.
It's not IMO genuine and all it's doing is causing
trouble in the third world. Think how far 800+ million
cold go i this country. There are fo starters hundreds of
hmeless people on our island. Woud that money or even
part of it not be better spent elsewhere??

And why can't South Africa give some of its
vast fortunes to eradicate poverty for its neighbors.
Why can't India set aside some of its massive wealth
to alleviating 'poverty' on its land etc etc

jonny72

walshb wrote: »

I do and that's not really a fair comparison is it.
There are serious problems here in Ireland and I'm
sick to the teeth hearing about cutbacks everywhere.
Ireland is simply being suckered into all this
foreign aid by the Bono's, Geldof's GOAL's, Concern's
and Clinton's of this world. Its all big big business.
It's not IMO genuine and all it's doing is causing
trouble in the third world. Think how far 800+ million
cold go i this country. There are fo starters hundreds of
hmeless people on our island. Woud that money or even
part of it not be better spent elsewhere??

And why can't South Africa give some of its
vast fortunes to eradicate poverty for its neighbors.
Why can't India set aside some of its massive wealth
to alleviating 'poverty' on its land etc etc

Then go out with a placard and start protesting about it, saying you want the money earmarked for Africa to go to Irish needs. The government (pushed by others of course) is saying - we are gonna take a tiny little percentage of your paycheck and give it to starving impoverished people who can't moan about crap on messageboards. I can't see why anyone has a problem with that.

walshb

I'd probably get arrested, dare I say anything negative about Africa!!!!

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

How many in Ireland actually earn money when expenses are taken out, like food, bills, mortgage etc etc..

Quite a lot actually. Over 1% of over 20's in this country are millionaires (not including property). Car ownership is increasing at a rate of 5% per annum. Income per capita is above that of the EU 15. In other words, Irish people have money to burn.

walshb wrote: »

How many people work in Ieland?

Unemployment has held relatively steady at 4.3% over the last few years. That's lower than the US, Austria, Australia, The Netherlands, Sweden, Canada and Germany, to name but a few.

walshb wrote: »

There are serious problems here in Ireland and I'm sick to the teeth hearing about cutbacks everywhere.

Of course there are problems, but throwing money at them is going to solve them; case in point, the health service.

walshb wrote: »

Ireland is simply being suckered into all this foreign aid by the Bono's, Geldof's GOAL's, Concern's and Clinton's of this world.

If people want to make contributions to charities that is their business. What concern is it of yours how people spend their own money?

walshb wrote: »

Its all big big business.

Seriously, where are you getting this from? In 2006, Oxfam Ireland (for example) reported a LOSS of over €500,000.

walshb wrote: »

It's not IMO genuine and all it's doing is causing trouble in the third world.

That is your opinion and nothing more.

walshb wrote: »

There are fo starters hundreds of hmeless people on our island.

Yes, there are homeless people in this country, but you are being very naive if you think they are all on the streets simply because they ran out of money. Besides, there are charities, such as Focus, doing excellent work to help genuine homeless people.

walshb wrote: »

And why can't South Africa give some of its vast fortunes to eradicate poverty for its neighbors. Why can't India set aside some of its massive wealth to alleviating 'poverty' on its land etc etc

So, it's ok for South Africa and India to give money as aid, but it's wrong for Ireland to do so? Why is that?

jmayo

gbh wrote: »

Of course western politicians play a very cynical game on this. On the one hand they want to be popular with our farmers and subsidise them. On the other they give aid to the third world.

Ah the ould chestnut about free agricultural trade and no subsidies for western farmers will help all the poor African, South American subsistence farmers. More like help the rich massive ranchers and massive farmers in these regions. The great Free World Trade myth and the fact it really only benefits the rich who just move source of manufacturing/production.

gbh wrote: »

In Swaziland the king uses public money to build vast palaces. Yet there is no free press as there is in ireland to criticise him

I thought it was for his wives ?
Does he still get a new one every year?

gbh wrote: »

The problem here is that Irish people are not getting value for money. Aid must be an investment with returns. The increased spend mustn't be to continually plug the budgets of countries where there is no real reform of the political system.

Thought you were talking about our health service here for a minute :rolleyes:

purple'n'gold

walshb wrote: »

I'd probably get arrested, dare I say anything negative about Africa!!!!

It would be extraordinarily difficult to say anything positive about sub Saharan Africa.

cavedave

Ah the ould chestnut about free agricultural trade and no subsidies for western farmers will help all the poor African, South American subsistence farmers. More like help the rich massive ranchers and massive farmers in these regions. The great Free World Trade myth and the fact it really only benefits the rich who just move source of manufacturing/production.

Yes that old one that the ability to trade and make money helps people more then preventing them trading. Yes some rich people would get richer but so would a lot of poor people. If you have some evidence other then "Economists have shown for over 200 years that we should do it and no one has so obviously we should not" as to why free trade is a bad idea?

walshb

djpbarry wrote: »

Quite a lot actually. Over 1% of over 20's in this country are millionaires (not including property). Car ownership is increasing at a rate of 5% per annum. Income per capita is above that of the EU 15. In other words, Irish people have money to burn.

Unemployment has held relatively steady at 4.3% over the last few years. That's lower than the US, Austria, Australia, The Netherlands, Sweden, Canada and Germany, to name but a few.

Of course there are problems, but throwing money at them is going to solve them; case in point, the health service.

If people want to make contributions to charities that is their business. What concern is it of yours how people spend their own money?

Seriously, where are you getting this from? In 2006, Oxfam Ireland (for example) reported a LOSS of over €500,000.

That is your opinion and nothing more.

Yes, there are homeless people in this country, but you are being very naive if you think they are all on the streets simply because they ran out of money. Besides, there are charities, such as Focus, doing excellent work to help genuine homeless people.

So, it's ok for South Africa and India to give money as aid, but it's wrong for Ireland to do so? Why is that?

So tax the bloody rich then if that's the case. Why should those who are NOT making money have their hard earned few bob squandered to Africa.
Let the so called millionaires and Bono's give their tax money.

I couldn't care what people do wIth their own personal money. I do care however that my money, MINE, is being squandered for Africa. These people who are urging increased aid all time aren't the ones who have to suffer.
They are great at throwng around other peoples money, not their own...

Again, personal contributions to charity is up to the individual, but lecturing and
harassing governments to part with the money of those not earning much is what's wrong......

edanto

walshb wrote: »

I do and that's not really a fair comparison is it.
How many in Ireland actually earn money when
expenses are taken out, like food, bills, mortgage etc etc..
How many people work in Ieland?
There are serious problems here in Ireland and I'm
sick to the teeth hearing about cutbacks everywhere.
Ireland is simply being suckered into all this
foreign aid by the Bono's, Geldof's GOAL's, Concern's
and Clinton's of this world. Its all big big business.
It's not IMO genuine and all it's doing is causing
trouble in the third world. Think how far 800+ million
cold go i this country. There are fo starters hundreds of
hmeless people on our island. Woud that money or even
part of it not be better spent elsewhere??

And why can't South Africa give some of its
vast fortunes to eradicate poverty for its neighbors.
Why can't India set aside some of its massive wealth
to alleviating 'poverty' on its land etc etc

:eek: I think the key there is IMO. Your opinion is obviously informed by your experiences, you probably see homeless people on the streets every day. Can I guess that you haven't lived in any place with a lot of poor people? (I'd exclude safari trips etc)

Have you any justification or facts to back up your contention that "Its all big big business". Fair enough, there are several shameful examples of unscrupulous money wasting/stealing, but do you have any kind of report, newspaper article or experience suggesting that the entire sector is as broken and useless as you suggest? I'm asking in an agressive way, cos I'm a little offended by your contention, so maybe back it up or take it back.

I'm not asking you to feel guilty just 'cos you're rich or anything (but if you're interested http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php )- just less of the sweeping accusations about charities 'suckering' people and 'causing trouble' in the third world. If you want to be taken seriously, do the research before you get in the ring.

jmayo

cavedave wrote: »

Yes that old one that the ability to trade and make money helps people more then preventing them trading. Yes some rich people would get richer but so would a lot of poor people. If you have some evidence other then "Economists have shown for over 200 years that we should do it and no one has so obviously we should not" as to why free trade is a bad idea?

And will you be the one on here complaining when more rainforest is being chopped down in Brazil to make way for beef ranches to meet the needs of the EU citizens who will have sold out their own farmers?
Trade is all well and good but have you ever wondered why the likes of George Soros is investing millions in Argentina land ?
Yes you will say Argentina is not third world but what is stop him from buying in some real third world nation given the right conditions?
Zimbabwe would be ideal if it didn't have it's current leader.

You could open all the world's markets up to Zimbabwian farmers in the morning, but I don't think that would help the countries farmers or people?
Oh wait the great government actually took the land off the farmers (yes they were mostly white) who did offer some employment and contributed to the country's economy/exports, and gave it to it's supporters who haven't a clue farming. It wasn't even given to those that had worked on the farms.
Now the land lies idle, badly used and the people are starving.

It's hard to farm when you are getting shot at, your land is full of mines or the corrupt government is stealing your land when they feel like it.
Sort out those messes before deciding to screw up productive argriculture in this part of the world.

walshb

edanto wrote: »

:eek: I think the key there is IMO. Your opinion is obviously informed by your experiences, you probably see homeless people on the streets every day. Can I guess that you haven't lived in any place with a lot of poor people? (I'd exclude safari trips etc)

Have you any justification or facts to back up your contention that "Its all big big business". Fair enough, there are several shameful examples of unscrupulous money wasting/stealing, but do you have any kind of report, newspaper article or experience suggesting that the entire sector is as broken and useless as you suggest? I'm asking in an agressive way, cos I'm a little offended by your contention, so maybe back it up or take it back.

I'm not asking you to feel guilty just 'cos you're rich or anything (but if you're interested http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php )- just less of the sweeping accusations about charities 'suckering' people and 'causing trouble' in the third world. If you want to be taken seriously, do the research before you get in the ring.

The whole world revolves around business. Crime is a business, poverty is big business, obesity is a business...this is not my opinion, it's fact.
Even the terrible things in this world are exploited by people.
It's what makes the world go around. Does anyone seriously believe
that these aid agencies are doing what they say the do purely
because they are angels of mercy? It's all business and egos.
Some are genuine like Mother Theresa, hope I spelt her name correct.

But I think it's a little ridiculous to hear all these so called
angels lecture us on Africa and they themselves are living very very
comfortable lives, earning plenty of money for their rantings.

All the CEO's of these agencies are being paid heavily to extract
money from the taxpayer. It's a ******* job to these people.
It's not that they are so brilliant or caring.
Did any of these CEO's do a thing in their own community?

I'd really like to hear about it, if so.....

Then you have the government ministers in charge of
writing blank cheques to the third world.
It doesn't bother him/her in the slightest as they will
earn massive money no matter how much of OTHER
peoples money they squander......

No doubt Africa needs help in certain parts. But to hear
the WEST continually lecture us about how bad off they are
is disgusting. Africa Is a massively powerful continet
that needs their people to sort out their problems.

Yes, help from the WEST is needed, but it's the arrogance
and power trippers of the WEST trying to take over and
dictate that's the problem.

You just have to look at the mass demonstrations in CHAD recently
which are calling for foreigners to F off, and still you have Dermot Ahern
pushing for Irish troops to deploy there..
The people of Chad don't want you, so piss off...
The funniest thing is that as poor and starving as these
people are, they still whip us when the Olympics come
around.......

cavedave

And will you be the one on here complaining when more rainforest is being chopped down in Brazil to make way for beef ranches to meet the needs of the EU citizens who will have sold out their own farmers?

Possibly I will be. Each hamburger should have a 2 euro health tax on it rather then the current subsidy they do have. Then you need to add a tax for the nitrus oxide and methane produced in making the burger. After that meats actual cost will be higher reducing the demand. What will happen to Europe's land if the farmers stop farming it? presumably it will become forested?

Zimbabwe would be ideal if it didn't have it's current leader.

As I already said most of Africa's misery is caused by corruption

jmayo

cavedave wrote: »

Possibly I will be. Each hamburger should have a 2 euro health tax on it rather then the current subsidy they do have. Then you need to add a tax for the nitrus oxide and methane produced in making the burger. After that meats actual cost will be higher reducing the demand. What will happen to Europe's land if the farmers stop farming it? presumably it will become forested?

As I already said most of Africa's misery is caused by corruption

True Africa is a total mess and most of it because of corruption. I have said it in another thread that at this stage I think some countries are incapable of governing themselves. There is a combination of things responsible for this including tribal issues, ill conveived national boundaries, multinationals' greed and western world/superpower interference.
But saying all that the countries just replace one tin pot dictator with another an the cycle continues.
Giving aid or cancelling their debt is I think a non runner for lots of countries. There has to be some link between ellimination of corruption, full democracy and aid.
You cannot seriously give aid to Zimbabwe since it will end up in Mugabe's or his cronies pockets and then back to Swiss bank account.

But free trade often only benefits the people with the capital to invest not the poor who still do all the work. Another thing to be aware of is that some western chemical companies have offloaded banned pesticides, insecticdes into these markets and they are readily used to up productivity. The produce is sold back into the west and the people who pushed to have these substances banned in home markets end up ingesting them.

On local front, I think the most notable hypocrisy has to be Bono lecturing us how the country should contribute extra from national revenues to aid the third world, when he himself has benefitted from very low taxes as an artist and then moves some of his affairs to The Netherlands to avail of even more favourable tax regime.
Pay full tax like the rest of us and then he can lecture us all he wants, otherwise shut to **** up.

gbh

This increase in aid, which will be about 300 million extra from what it is now has to come from somewhere, either taxes or else cutbacks so it is right to ask will we be getting value for money.

And it is our money after all not Bertie's money or Brian Cowens money or even Irish Aid's money but our money.

So I for one would like to see more transparancy and I would like to have a say where it goes and how it is spent. I may not be an expert on spending aid money, but i know that we should try to be bringing down regimes like the king of Swaziland and helping democracy and not paying for their healthcare while he builds himself a new palace. There is something fundamentally disgusting about people like the king of swaziland which we tolerate and turn a blind eye to.

Development has to be about mindsets as well as money and particularly the mindsets of third world leaders who come around with the begging bowl every so often but give us the two fingers when we tell them they should be more democratic and less corrupt.

edanto

Did any of these CEO's do a thing in their own community?

I'd really like to hear about it, if so.....

Name one that isn't John O'Shea. Typically, these people aren't high-ego, they generally just get the job done quietly. And why do they have to do something in their own local community for you to respect them? Why are you giving out so much about someone that wants to do their own thing and not get in your way?

Even so, it's interesting that you'd like to hear about it. What media do you consume? Is it soundbite journalism? If so, you're unlikely to come across good news stories or even stories with no controversy. Like I said, this is the kind of information you have to seek out.

Africa Is a massively powerful continet
that needs their people to sort out their problems.

Africa is the mother of all of us - there have been people living there for longer than anywhere else in the world. There's a strong culture there of community, arguable stronger than here and often a good understanding of the problems and the causes.
Everyone that's working in development would agree with you that it should be stakeholder led and not driven by opinions of people that live in ivory towers in the West. But that stereotype is just wrong. Irish Aid isn't distantly removed from the projects that they support, they send people to monitor and report - have you looked at their website? Have a read of this page - http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/about.asp

Yes, help from the WEST is needed, but it's the arrogance
and power trippers of the WEST trying to take over and
dictate that's the problem.

Give me some examples

Irish Foreign Aid is very well respected throughout the world; it's untied for example, which means that it can be spent in the receiving country, thus boosting the target economy. For contrast, the biggest recipient of US Foreign Aid is Israel and it's tied, which means that most of it has to be spent on Defense.

The funniest thing is that as poor and starving as these
people are, they still whip us when the Olympics come
around.......

Honestly mate, I don't think that's funny. I think that's a symbol of what people can achieve when the odds are stacked against them and the playing field is level. Unlike the current economic situation in the world.

jonny72

walshb wrote: »

So tax the bloody rich then if that's the case. Why should those who are NOT making money have their hard earned few bob squandered to Africa.
Let the so called millionaires and Bono's give their tax money.

I couldn't care what people do wIth their own personal money. I do care however that my money, MINE, is being squandered for Africa. These people who are urging increased aid all time aren't the ones who have to suffer.
They are great at throwng around other peoples money, not their own...

Again, personal contributions to charity is up to the individual, but lecturing and
harassing governments to part with the money of those not earning much is what's wrong......

These people who are urging increased aid all the time aren't the ones who have to suffer, implying that you are? Honestly, if you don't earn too much, then you aren't getting taxed too much, and .7% of that? Doesn't sound like suffering to me, sounds like whinging.

I think if the government is completely squandering that 800 million and giving it straight to dictators then you have a right to complain, but from the facts so far it appears that the money is quite well handled in most cases, and does in fact reach the needy in Africa. You have every right to come on here and argue that Kim Il Yong is a great and benevolent leader and you have every right to moan about giving a few pennies to Africa, just don't expect not to get stick about it.

gbh

Well does anyone agree that the aid is only keeping these people ticking over?

What needs to happen is fundamental root and branch change in sub-saharn Africa in terms of increased democracy before these people will really get out of poverty otherwise we will always be helping the victims of corrupt and unrepresentitive governments.

As it stands these countries seem to get poorer and poorer every year and more dependent on aid due to the corruption and mismanagment of those at the top.

sovtek

walshb wrote: »

And why can't South Africa give some of its
vast fortunes to eradicate poverty for its neighbors.

Actually they do give some and a lot of that vast fortunes goes the way "we" tell them to (ie the IMF)

edanto

gbh wrote: »

As it stands these countries seem to get poorer and poorer every year and more dependent on aid due to the corruption and mismanagment of those at the top.

This is a persistent myth.

Here is one rebuttal, taken from here

One measure of the quality of governance in over 150 countries is provided by Transparency International, an organization dedicated to strengthening civil society in the fight against government corruption. Transparency International produces an annual ranking of “corruption perceptions,” measuring the public’s view of the extent of corruption in a country.

In the 2005 rankings, Iceland scored as the least corrupt country, with the Scandinavian countries, New Zealand, and Singapore close behind. The US ranked seventeenth from the top, a not-so-glorious position for the world’s leading power. In general, the poorer the country, the lower the ranking: tied for last place are Chad and Bangladesh.

A bit of statistical analysis reveals further important patterns. First, Sub-Saharan African countries are less corrupt on average than countries at the same income level in other parts of the world. For example, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, and Rwanda rank much higher than Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Vietnam. Yet the Asian countries’ economies have tended to grow much faster over the past generation. Corruption therefore cannot be the unique factor that holds Africa back. Africa’s problems have more to do with droughts, malaria, AIDS, and lack of infrastructure.

You can't just make a glib statement like 'poverty is due to corruption at the top' - the issue is deep. For example, it's probably easier for a corrupt regime to rule in a country where the citizens aren't connected to each other via the web and a free press. But that doesn't mean that the corruption caused the poverty.

But don't you trust Irish Aid, the topic of the thread, to have programmes in place to guard against the problem of corruption? Or would you criticise them if they spent more on administration to guarantee effectiveness?

You suggest "fundamental root and branch change in sub-saharan Africa in terms of increased democracy". How would that work? Have you thought it through?

Would you aim to improve the living standards, freedoms and educational opportunities of the ordinary African villager? Great idea, that's what plenty of charities are working on!!

Mick86

jimbo78 wrote: »

I agree they need to be very careful what they do with the money, but that a terrible excuse to reduce the amount of foreign aid we give

You think it's terrible to reduce the amount of money we give foreign dictators?

Multiply the amount we donate by the number of donor countries and by the number of years the donations have been going on. Obviously there will be variations in the amount donated by each country and over the years but the money donated to the Third World must now be in the trillions of dollars. And very little return to show for it.

I'm not in favour of abandoning starving Africans altogether. But I'd like my taxes spent more wisely.

Time Magazine

Mick86 wrote: »

You think it's terrible to reduce the amount of money we give foreign dictators?

I'm not in favour of abandoning starving Africans altogether. But I'd like my taxes spent more wisely.

The breakdown for how it's spent is online. Any particular programmes you don't like?

The weird bastard child Vietnam aside, which of our partner countries are run by dictators, exactly?

Also, do you specifically suggest we give no aid (as distinct from money) to countries under dictatorship?

gbh

An example of a basket case we give aid to...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1069035.stm

Bad governance is at the root of much if not most under development in the third world. If we could get them or teach then to govern correctly then a lot of problems would be solved. Instead many of the governments are interested in staying in power and lining their pockets. If you don't put pressure on them to change, and lets be clear if the Soviet Union changed due to Western pressure then a small country in the developing world can also change, well then they will keep on the same track to nowhere.

The facts show that countries can be turned around through good governance and they can be brought down by bad ones, and we all know examples of that.

gbh

edanto wrote: »

You can't just make a glib statement like 'poverty is due to corruption at the top' - the issue is deep. For example, it's probably easier for a corrupt regime to rule in a country where the citizens aren't connected to each other via the web and a free press. But that doesn't mean that the corruption caused the poverty.

But don't you trust Irish Aid, the topic of the thread, to have programmes in place to guard against the problem of corruption? Or would you criticise them if they spent more on administration to guarantee effectiveness?

You suggest "fundamental root and branch change in sub-saharan Africa in terms of increased democracy". How would that work? Have you thought it through?

Would you aim to improve the living standards, freedoms and educational opportunities of the ordinary African villager? Great idea, that's what plenty of charities are working on!!

Yes I would of course...as shown in the link to the article above there is no free press in Swazliand. Would you like to live in a country where there is no free press and where our leaders could do what they want with our money. To put it another way it would be like Bertie Ahearn taking millions of tax payers money and building a palace for himself while people died due to poor healthcare systems. Can you not see the link here between the wealth and extravegance of the monarch and the grinding poverty of the people? It is so obvious that if you have an absolute monarch who doesnt give a toss about his people, then you will have a basket case of a country. It is exactly the same situation as pre-revolutionary France. Surely you agree the revolution was a good thing for the people and contributed to improved living standards for the majority, even if it took time?