The Michael Martin/Uganda Aid Scandal

Cork boy 55

The Michael Martin/Uganda Aid Scandal


Michael Martin TD and minister for foreign affairs is currently (June/July 2010)
on Government business in Africa. He has just visited Uganda and next to Ethiopia
While in Uganda He pledged 166 million euro's in aid to Uganda over 4 years.
This Aid is to spent on the following-
HIV/AIDS, education, gender, governance and private sector development.


The primary function of the AID is to deal with the HIV/AIDS issue
a sexually transmitted infection.


Now Ireland is currently just going through a very severe economic downturn.
I won't outline the various figures here i.e. we have now 450,000 unemployed etc.
We are borrowing just to meet day to day requirements billions of euro's
on International bond markets at high interest rates.


It is scandalous that we have to give foreign development aid at all during this period of Irish hardship. but thats not the real scandal of this story. This year Uganda has purchased 6 Su-30 flanker fighter-bomber jets from Russia at a cost of 54 million dollars each. (324 million dollars)
Now each country even a poor developing country has a right to a defense budget.
But these weapon systems are not required for Uganda's defense. It is nothing short of a insult to the
Irish people and the Uganda People that their elite have purchased these expensive "white elephants" Who does the Uganda Air force wish to engage with these Fighters???


Now either Michael Martin knew about the Su-30's in which case one has to question his character/motive or he did not know in which case he is incompetent and not fit for purpose.
In either scenario he must immediately resign and these funds restored to the Irish people.
I would encourage The people of Ireland to contact his office and let him know your displeasure.
also he must not be re-elected assuming he survives this scandal.
Why is the Irish taxpayer subsidizes the Russian arms industry?


Uganda population statistics


Population growth rate 3.4%
2002 24 million
2008 32 million


Su-30 Flanker description
It is dual-role fighter for all-weather, air-to-air and air-to-surface deep interdiction missions
A Su-30MKK variant is estimated at US$53 million.
Guns: 1 × GSh-30-1 gun (30 mm caliber, 150 rounds)
AAMs: 6 × R-27ER1 (AA-10C), 2 × R-27ET1 (AA-10D), 6 × R-73E (AA-11), 6 × R-77 RVV-AE(AA-12)
ASMs: 6 × Kh-31P/Kh-31A anti-radar missiles, 6 × Kh-29T/L laser guided missiles, 2 × Kh-59ME
Aerial bombs: 6 × KAB 500KR, 3 × KAB-1500KR, 8 × FAB-500T, 28 × OFAB-250-270 :mad:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-06/30/c_13377589.htm

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100405/158435702.html

Also RTE have not covered this story so spread the word please

Welease

Who does the aid go to? Agencies in Uganda or the Government?

Chuchoter

Its a disgrace, however I disagree with all bilateral aid as it infantilizes countries and generally just doesn't work. The minister has any number of reasons not to give to Uganda, bombs aside, the impending genocide of gays, lesbians and their families. Is anything going to get done about it? No. Because you just get all these damn dogooders saying we should help the less well off because we're wealthy, all it does is service some kind of white guilt or something, because it certainly doesn't help anyone.

George Orwell 1982

Ah sure we have money to just throw away. :pac:

Chuchoter

Welease wrote: »

Who does the aid go to? Agencies in Uganda or the Government?

The government as far as I'm aware.

Cork boy 55

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Ah sure we have money to just throw away. :pac:

This is what the Su-30 flanker looks like

54 million a pop
the Irish peoples gift to Uganda

Pot Noodle =

Its crazy

Nijmegen

Aid to countries ultimately helps the government, whether it goes direct to NGO's or not:

• Government can siphen money off
• Government does not have to provide services the NGO's cover with this money

In any case, I recall in another African country there was recently a famine, as government ministers rolled to meetings in a brand new fleet of mercs.

Post-colonialism is what they call it, though blaming that sort of excess on your colonial masters is an easy cop out. To an extent, Ireland could also said to be suffering from 'post-colonialism' for the past 90 years.......

African countries cannot blame this sort of stupidity on the evil white man who left them to rot... If a country has $350m to spend and they choose bombs over butter, that's their choice.

We shouldn't give them the aid. We won't go in and run their country for them either. They can figure it out for themselves.

RichardAnd

I've been saying this for years and it's controversial but people should NOT be giving money to third world countries. The simple fact is that we have no idea where that money goes.

Also, as the original poster pointed out, we have plenty of our own that need help.

donkey balls

Even our own Airforce dont have jet fighter aicraft:eek: it,s a known fact in africa that Aid money never gets to the people that need it most.
there is also dodgy cargo airlines ferrying guns around the continent just google victor bout,the money that martin is giving them will go probely on maintenace for the aircraft:eek:

gbee

[QUOTE=donkey balls;66696780 it,s a known fact in africa that Aid money never gets to the people that need it most.[/QUOTE]

As Sir Bob Geldof found out himself first hand, his food aid ship was surrounded by troops who shot anyone who tried to get the free aid. The main food rotted and the ship was eventually burn and sunk dockside.

its nots just Africa, we give aid to India who spends quite alot of money on things such as air craft carriers, nuclear weapons programmes and oh a space program

WTF are we like

these people arent short of resources they have severely corrupt people in charge. Foreign aid subsidises this carry on and delays change and destroys the motivation among the people for change. Some countries in Africa have massive oil and mineral wealth.

Cork boy 55

Hi

I just like to point out that RTE did not report this visit or AID annoucement.
And it received very little coverage in the Irish press.
I suggest that everyone spread the word on this.

Start a campaign the purpose of this should be
1: Michael Martin resignation
2: The restoration of these funds to the irish people.

Thank you

RichardAnd

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Hi

I just like to point out that RTE did not report this visit or AID annoucement.
And it received very little coverage in the Irish press.
I suggest that everyone spread the word on this.

Of course they didn't. RTE news is a disgrace to journalism, they don't seek to tell people the truth, they only do what their masters (whomever they may be) want them to do.

If you want news, look elsewhere.

i71jskz5xu42pb

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Start a campaign the purpose of this should be
1: Michael Martin resignation
2: The restoration of these funds to the irish people.

Jeez, way to jump the gun. Before you send him to the guillotine why don't you try ascertain some of the facts. Write the man a letter, write your local TD a letter. Tell them what you think you know and ask them to explain it.

I'm not saying Martin has not messed up rightly here but I think his side of it and a few hard facts are warranted before the inevitable Facebook group is started.

Count Dooku

RichardAnd wrote: »

Of course they didn't. RTE news is a disgrace to journalism, they don't seek to tell people the truth, they only do what their masters (whomever they may be) want them to do.

If you want news, look elsewhere.

It will be not first time when all Irish media protect thieves in power
Year ago all media ignored 12 of September anti-NAMA protest, because they couldn’t make impression that only left loony are protesting against bail out of bankers
Irish media exists are only to allow different part of political establishment compete with each other and protect political establishment as single unit

bad2dabone

Cool planes though. I'd buy them if I was de chief mon.

Anita Blow

Jesus..people think that just because they've taken a pay cut that all of a sudden they're much worse off than families in Africa? Even on the dole, people here have a much higher quality of life here than there. And not to mention the baseless accusations that the Irish government would just hand over X Million Euro and not have checks in place to make sure it's spent well. A lot of the money is given to charities working over there, like Trocaire who have centres set up there.

Honestly it's threads like this that make me realise the damage done by the Celtic Tiger. Even during the 80s, when people were dirt poor, Ireland managed to be the biggest donater per capita during Live Aid. And now, as a first world, developed country, we can't even spare not that much in terms of our overall budget just because we're in a recession. Ugh

Lu Tze

Anita Blow wrote: »

Jesus..people think that just because they've taken a pay cut that all of a sudden they're much worse off than families in Africa? Even on the dole, people here have a much higher quality of life here than there. And not to mention the baseless accusations that the Irish government would just hand over X Million Euro and not have checks in place to make sure it's spent well. A lot of the money is given to charities working over there, like Trocaire who have centres set up there.

Honestly it's threads like this that make me realise the damage done by the Celtic Tiger. Even during the 80s, when people were dirt poor, Ireland managed to be the biggest donater per capita during Live Aid. And now, as a first world, developed country, we can't even spare not that much in terms of our overall budget just because we're in a recession. Ugh

I think you are interpreting the comments here incorrectly. We/I do not think that that DFA are giving them 166m to spend on planes.

Even with the highest checks and validation, ensuring it all goes to register charities, this money is just subsidising these planes, as the government in Uganda now no longer need to provide food for the poor as the aid agencies are doing so. Hence they have a budget to buy fighter planes.

That is the problem. The will be no regime change in these jurisdictions while we are subsidising them to better equip themselves to put down and revolt/protest. If aid was stopped it might spark as revolution of sorts when people need to change the regime just to survive.

Sleepy

Should we be shipping 166m worth of AK47's and ammo to the people of Uganda so that they can throw off their current rulers?

Lu Tze

Sleepy wrote: »

Should we be shipping 166m worth of AK47's and ammo to the people of Uganda so that they can throw off their current rulers?

No, looking at the results going in and inflencing/overthrowing regimes i don't think its worth it. Look at america, after supplying the afghans with weaponry against russia. Cessation of trade with the current government perhaps. Or my preference would be aid dependant on the government reducing its military budget etc.

BehindTheScenes

The money is not going on airplanes and the Ugandan gov. does not receive the money.

http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/uganda.asp7

The money is administered by Irish Aid and then sent along it's way to different groups.

If anyone wants to start taking money from third world countries because of the debt crisis created by the banks, remember that wouldn't keep us going for 4 days let alone 4 years.

Lu Tze

It is not because of the debt crisis that i think our money would be better spent elsewhere.

blue_steel

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

The money is not going on airplanes and the Ugandan gov. does not receive the money.

http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/uganda.asp7

The money is administered by Irish Aid and then sent along it's way to different groups.

If anyone wants to start taking money from third world countries because of the debt crisis created by the banks, remember that wouldn't keep us going for 4 days let alone 4 years.

The money still goes to provide vital services to Ugandan people while at the same time their government is squandering millions on fighter jets. Why should we prop up the Ugandan government in their military hubris? No matter what way you spin it Irish taxpayers money is ending up with the Russian arms industry.

BehindTheScenes

blue_steel wrote: »

The money still goes to provide vital services to Ugandan people while at the same time their government is squandering millions on fighter jets. Why should we prop up the Ugandan government in their military hubris? No matter what way you spin it Irish taxpayers money is ending up with the Russian arms industry.

Because this is about the average person getting screwed over. Why should the average Joe in Uganda starve because of the elitist spending currently taking place there. You think a favourable position is to let them starve? Great so then we get to keep our money and do as we please with it. Then we can let them deal with it.

Bringing the irresponsible spending thinking a little closer to home. There are approximately 60 million Germans saying why should we help Ireland their elites spent inappropriately we in Germany didn't and we need our tax money to cut our deficit. That's not happening because one German woman sees the merits of a bit of solidarity, of a bigger ideal.

Now if I were completely devoid of compassion I would agree with you. I though think there is something obscene about removing the equivalent of four days of Irish spending for a country that would see four years of benefit from it.

BehindTheScenes

Lu Tze wrote: »

It is not because of the debt crisis that i think our money would be better spent elsewhere.

Where would you rather see the money spent? Tell me of a third world country that is not in a mess due to a political elite.

i71jskz5xu42pb

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

Tell me of a third world country that is not in a mess due to a political elite.

And if it was not in a mess due to a political elite, chances are it would not need the aid in the first place. Catch 22 if ever there was one.

Cork boy 55

Correction on this thread

I wrote to RTE(complaints@rte.ie) complaining about the lack of coverage of the AID package and the visit

And I recieved a reply pointing out that on the 28th July that at the start of the visit they did say he there.
RTÉ News: Micheál Martin visits Uganda, Ethiopia

But and its a big but they acknowledged
they did not cover the Aid package and told me that
"We have noted your comments about the government's aid package to Africa and have forwarded your mail to our News and Current Affairs Editorial staff for attention".

Cork boy 55

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

You think a favourable position is to let them starve? .

Uganda population statistics

Population growth rate 3.4%
2002 24 million
2008 32 million

Cork boy 55

Anita Blow wrote: »

Jesus..people think that just because they've taken a pay cut that all of a sudden they're much worse off than families in Africa? Even on the dole, people here have a much higher quality of life here than there. And not to mention the baseless accusations that the Irish government would just hand over X Million Euro and not have checks in place to make sure it's spent well. A lot of the money is given to charities working over there, like Trocaire who have centres set up there.

Honestly it's threads like this that make me realise the damage done by the Celtic Tiger. Even during the 80s, when people were dirt poor, Ireland managed to be the biggest donater per capita during Live Aid. And now, as a first world, developed country, we can't even spare not that much in terms of our overall budget just because we're in a recession. Ugh

The situtaion here is worse than 80s

The Republic of Ireland’s economy is in a technical depression in 2009
budjet defict of 14% largest in EU
national debt €75.2 billion (2009) 1985(30 billion)
massive levels of personnnel debt negative equity
the interest rates on international bonds are going thru roof
The state of the banks etc
th future is uncertain we may need every cent.

We are in a an emergency.
Aid should be suspended or reduced until the we can see light at end of tunnel.

This is not a tread on AID as such but on the misuse of that AID
and the ugandans which takes our money and then turns around
and buys a squadron of state of the art fighter bombers for no reason
and the incomptenece of your minister for foreign affairs a man with ambitions to be the top dog in this country.

blue_steel

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

Because this is about the average person getting screwed over. Why should the average Joe in Uganda starve because of the elitist spending currently taking place there. You think a favourable position is to let them starve? Great so then we get to keep our money and do as we please with it. Then we can let them deal with it.

Bringing the irresponsible spending thinking a little closer to home. There are approximately 60 million Germans saying why should we help Ireland their elites spent inappropriately we in Germany didn't and we need our tax money to cut our deficit. That's not happening because one German woman sees the merits of a bit of solidarity, of a bigger ideal.

Now if I were completely devoid of compassion I would agree with you. I though think there is something obscene about removing the equivalent of four days of Irish spending for a country that would see four years of benefit from it.

We are legitimising how the Ugandan government is spending its money by providing for their citizens what they don't have the decency to provide. On balance I think the money should be given BUT it should be alongside a diplomatic denouncement of the Ugandan government. No just handed over in silence to help prop up yet another corrupt African regime.

Anita Blow

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The situtaion here is worse than 80s

The Republic of Ireland’s economy is in a technical depression in 2009
budjet defict of 14% largest in EU
national debt €75.2 billion (2009) 1985(30 billion)
massive levels of personnnel debt negative equity
the interest rates on international bonds are going thru roof
The state of the banks etc
th future is uncertain we may need every cent.

We are in a an emergency.
Aid should be suspended or reduced until the we can see light at end of tunnel.

This is not a tread on AID as such but on the misuse of that AID
and the ugandans which takes our money and then turns around
and buys a squadron of state of the art fighter bombers for no reason
and the incomptenece of your minister for foreign affairs a man with ambitions to be the top dog in this country.

And even in a depression people are still able to enjoy free, clean, piped-to-the-home water and can still get food and shelter without a problem. Can the same be said for Africans? This is aid going directly to the people. As has been said above, should the average Ugandans be punished with starvation and illness because the actions of a select elite? It seems the Irish are now reluctant to show the compassion which they have been granted by others before.

As for your few statistics, your comparison of National Debt is irrelevant. It has risen yes, but since 1985 our GDP Per Capita has also risen from €8270 to €38,468. We can manage our debt and our economic situation.
No matter what you say, we are a lot more better off than most African countries and we can afford to donate a small percentage of our budget to humanitarian projects.

funnyname

Nijmegen wrote: »

Aid to countries ultimately helps the government, whether it goes direct to NGO's or not:

• Government can siphen money off
• Government does not have to provide services the NGO's cover with this money

In any case, I recall in another African country there was recently a famine, as government ministers rolled to meetings in a brand new fleet of mercs.

Post-colonialism is what they call it, though blaming that sort of excess on your colonial masters is an easy cop out. To an extent, Ireland could also said to be suffering from 'post-colonialism' for the past 90 years.......

African countries cannot blame this sort of stupidity on the evil white man who left them to rot... If a country has $350m to spend and they choose bombs over butter, that's their choice.

We shouldn't give them the aid. We won't go in and run their country for them either. They can figure it out for themselves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/10476388.stm

The parliamentarians have voted to be paid a basic $44,000 (£29,000) a year.

But extra allowances can bring the salary up to up to $126,000 (£84,000) after tax - a rise of 18%.

The allowances include $370 (£250) a day for turning up in parliament.
Continue reading the main story

Average annual income in Kenya is about $730 (£490), while most of the population earns less than $1 (66p) a day.

Now that's crazy!

Cork boy 55

Anita Blow wrote: »

And even in a depression people are still able to enjoy free, clean, piped-to-the-home water and can still get food and shelter without a problem. Can the same be said for Africans? This is aid going directly to the people. As has been said above, should the average Ugandans be punished with starvation and illness because the actions of a select elite? It seems the Irish are now reluctant to show the compassion which they have been granted by others before.

As for your few statistics, your comparison of National Debt is irrelevant. It has risen yes, but since 1985 our GDP Per Capita has also risen from €8270 to €38,468. We can manage our debt and our economic situation.
No matter what you say, we are a lot more better off than most African countries and we can afford to donate a small percentage of our budget to humanitarian projects.

What country do you live in?
Again we are in emergency and they is no light at end of tunnel yet.
the fact of the matter is we don't have this money.

national debt clock 84,626,230,000 and counting
http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php

Water
Its not free
http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterServices/News/MainBody,22197,en.htm
Food
http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=2109

Shelter
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=1296

Lu Tze

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

Because this is about the average person getting screwed over. Why should the average Joe in Uganda starve because of the elitist spending currently taking place there. You think a favourable position is to let them starve? Great so then we get to keep our money and do as we please with it. Then we can let them deal with it.It is not about being selfish, and keeping the money (totally different issue, though i don't agree with passing on this kind of debt to the next generation) we are providing for a people who's government are neglecting, and there aren't even any stipulations/criteria attached to the provision of aid

Bringing the irresponsible spending thinking a little closer to home. There are approximately 60 million Germans saying why should we help Ireland their elites spent inappropriately we in Germany didn't and we need our tax money to cut our deficit. That's not happening because one German woman sees the merits of a bit of solidarity, of a bigger ideal. we are part of the EU, we have contributed as well as recieved. Germany made things worse for us as the ECB interest rates followed what the german economy needed, which was completely out of sync with ours

Now if I were completely devoid of compassion I would agree with you. I though think there is something obscene about removing the equivalent of four days of Irish spending for a country that would see four years of benefit from it.we are borrowing this money though, and as i said above we are supporting a negligent regime, which will continue as long as we are paying for it

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

Where would you rather see the money spent? Tell me of a third world country that is not in a mess due to a political elite. I have lots of problems with charity. Charities where people are going out to build houses etc. - fantastic way to not encourage local employment! How do you proposed they get out of the situation they are in? Will continuing to give them aid with no prerequesite requirements going to help? You don't address the main problem we have highlighted in your posts

Anita Blow wrote: »

And even in a depression people are still able to enjoy free, clean, piped-to-the-home water and can still get food and shelter without a problem. Can the same be said for Africans? This is aid going directly to the people. As has been said above, should the average Ugandans be punished with starvation and illness because the actions of a select elite? It seems the Irish are now reluctant to show the compassion which they have been granted by others before.

As for your few statistics, your comparison of National Debt is irrelevant. It has risen yes, but since 1985 our GDP Per Capita has also risen from €8270 to €38,468. We can manage our debt and our economic situation.
No matter what you say, we are a lot more better off than most African countries and we can afford to donate a small percentage of our budget to humanitarian projects.why7 not much more then? Why invest the money back in our own water infrastructure which if you remember from the water shortages a couple of months back is severly deficient, when spending the same amount (of borrowed money) would improve so many more lives in africa? We have a much better borrowing rate than Uganda, i'm sure we could pump 20 billion in htere if we wanted to. How many extra years would we paying the debt off than we will be already?

Do either of ye have any objection/opinion to the main problem raised here, that giving aid is in essence freeing up funding for lavish military spending by their government?

Count Dooku

Anita Blow wrote: »

We can manage our debt and our economic situation.

What if not?
What will we do when foreign investors will realize that our kids will be not able to pay our debt?

Count Dooku

Anita Blow wrote: »

Honestly it's threads like this that make me realise the damage done by the Celtic Tiger. Even during the 80s, when people were dirt poor, Ireland managed to be the biggest donater per capita during Live Aid. And now, as a first world, developed country, we can't even spare not that much in terms of our overall budget just because we're in a recession. Ugh

Previous generation didn’t paid itself and transferred their debt on current generation through “Generation game”.
May be we should ask our kids first about making somebody feeling good on somebody else expense

North_West_Art

maybe there is a connection with China's investment in Uganda oil http://www.energychinaforum.com/news/37259.shtml,

Uganda's very large oil resource, http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article5512531.ece


and China's reported investment in Athlone
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Chinese-set-to-invest-billions-in-Ireland-97220099.html

we play ball with China in helping Uganda, and they will come good with their plans to invest in Ireland

Count Dooku

North_West_Art wrote: »

and China's reported investment in Athlone
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Chinese-set-to-invest-billions-in-Ireland-97220099.html

we play ball with China in helping Uganda, and they will come good with their plans to invest in Ireland

Even if it is true, why people of Ireland must pay for landowners in Athlone, who will make a huge profit and country will get nothing, except overinflated GDP

George Orwell 1982

Count Dooku wrote: »

Previous generation didn’t paid itself and transferred their debt on current generation through “Generation game”.
May be we should ask our kids first about making somebody feeling good on somebody else expense

This is a tad simplistic. All governments borrow for today. It makes sense to do so. Social and/or infrastructural investment means our kids inherit a better future. Yes there is debt to be paid off but it is usually cut in half due to inflation and where there is population increase it is spread among a larger number of people so that our kids get to live in a country with, for example, a better healthcare and education system, road or energy infrastructure. The return on investment from usually far surpases the cost of repaying the debt.

I know this doesn't relate to the current argument about foreign aid. I am just talking about the "generational game" as you call it.

Lu Tze

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

This is a tad simplistic. All governments borrow for today. It makes sense to do so. Social and/or infrastructural investment means our kids inherit a better future. Yes there is debt to be paid off but it is usually cut in half due to inflation and where there is population increase it is spread among a larger number of people so that our kids get to live in a country with, for example, a better healthcare and education system, road or energy infrastructure. The return on investment from usually far surpases the cost of repaying the debt.

I know this doesn't relate to the current argument about foreign aid. I am just talking about the "generational game" as you call it.

That would be true for capital investment in infrastructure. That is not what the majority of our borrowings are for.

George Orwell 1982

Lu Tze wrote: »

That would be true for capital investment in infrastructure. That is not what the majority of our borrowings are for.

If you are borrowing money to keep things where they are, then yes, this isn't really an investment so it isn't fair to pass on the related debt to future generations.

But for most things that could be called an investment, even things that aren't hard infrastructure like better education, better healthcare, better social services, etc, it can make sense to borrow and let a future generation pay it back. Investing in society now will benefit future generations and as I said in previous post when it comes to paying it back inflation and population increases will lessen the debt burden.

Wolfe Tone

This money was given in good faith. We should be bashing the Ugandans not the government.

North_West_Art

Count Dooku wrote: »

Even if it is true, why people of Ireland must pay for landowners in Athlone, who will make a huge profit and country will get nothing, except overinflated GDP

landowners may not make a huge profit, land will probably be sold at current going rates, landowners may only be making enough to clear debts they ran up on the strength of the value of the land 4-5 years ago.

Secondly, in terms of centrality, all roads lead to Athlone. It is pretty much the most central town in Ireland; growth of this magnitude in this location would have positive ripple effects throughout the country. (I hope)

bad2dabone

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

This money was given in good faith. We should be bashing the Ugandans not the government.

We can't bash them, they have loads of kick-ass planes and bombs!

Lu Tze

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

If you are borrowing money to keep things where they are, then yes, this isn't really an investment so it isn't fair to pass on the related debt to future generations.

But for most things that could be called an investment, even things that aren't hard infrastructure like better education, better healthcare, better social services, etc, it can make sense to borrow and let a future generation pay it back. Investing in society now will benefit future generations and as I said in previous post when it comes to paying it back inflation and population increases will lessen the debt burden.

I think thats where i disagree, despite having no econimist background but then that has never been a prerequisite for an opinion.

On a scaled down version, i wouldn't borrow to upgrade to energy saving light bulbs, as these are not a long term investment as they are consumables, however a wind turbine on the other hand a net present value analysis will decide whether its worth borrowing for at predicted interest rates and the expected payback period.

Godge

Lu Tze wrote: »

I think thats where i disagree, despite having no econimist background but then that has never been a prerequisite for an opinion.

On a scaled down version, i wouldn't borrow to upgrade to energy saving light bulbs, as these are not a long term investment as they are consumables, however a wind turbine on the other hand a net present value analysis will decide whether its worth borrowing for at predicted interest rates and the expected payback period.

you sound like an economist talking about net present value analysis.

the problem with economics (sorry one of the problems) is that it does not do opportunity cost very well. The example of the M50 junctions is the obvious case in point. While a net present value analysis may have decided that making the original N3-M50 junction freeflow was not viable, it wasn't able to account for the fact that the tennis club expanded on one side of the M50 and the gym was built on the other making the future freeflow prohibitively expensive as we are seeing now with the partial freeflow.

Most economists can predict ten of the last three recessions but I take everything they say with a jug of salt.

Lu Tze

Godge wrote: »

The example of the M50 junctions is the obvious case in point. While a net present value analysis may have decided that making the original N3-M50 junction freeflow was not viable, it wasn't able to account for the fact that the tennis club expanded on one side of the M50 and the gym was built on the other making the future freeflow prohibitively expensive as we are seeing now with the partial freeflow..

No economist background, just familiar with the concept through work. Take the next junction down. The N4, millions was saved on construction costs by putting in an alternative design (it would have original would have been a 3 level junction)

Not familiar with the N3 junction so not sure what the constraints on a free flow operation are. But i would have imagined there could be some alternative found similar to the m4

BehindTheScenes

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Uganda population statistics

Population growth rate 3.4%
2002 24 million
2008 32 million

Fifty-one percent of the population of the country lives slightly below the international poverty line of US $1.25 a day

Infant mortality Ireland= 3 per 1000 live births (2008 figure world bank)
Infant mortality Uganda= 84.5 per 1000 live births (2008 figure world bank)

Under 5 years of age mortality rate Ireland= 3.7 per 1000 (2008 figure world bank)
Under 5 years of age mortality rate Uganda= 134.9 per 1000 (2008 figure world bank)

Average life expectancy Ireland= 78 years of age (world health organisation)
Average life expectancy Uganda=49 years of age (world health organisation)

Now can you seriously say that people aren't dying earlier than they should be. True the population is growing but only due to the high amount of births.

blue_steel wrote: »

We are legitimising how the Ugandan government is spending its money by providing for their citizens what they don't have the decency to provide. On balance I think the money should be given BUT it should be alongside a diplomatic denouncement of the Ugandan government. No just handed over in silence to help prop up yet another corrupt African regime.

I completely agree with you on that. My own argument is that stopping the money will only affect average people that have no power in government.

Lu Tze wrote: »

Do either of ye have any objection/opinion to the main problem raised here, that giving aid is in essence freeing up funding for lavish military spending by their government?

I don't think it does, because if a government is willing to spend on the military when it is a poor country it's not going to spend on the population even if there is less money there.

As regards the provision of aid. It is generally administered on the ground by Irish aid organisations. If you go to the Irish aid website you will see for Ghana that there are various people there to administer and oversee the aid. If you are asking for a detailed analysis with goals I don’t know if there is that. I personally don’t think that they give out money and say do your best with it.

Ireland received considerably more than it put in the pot of the EU. Germany didn’t make things worse for us with interest rate cuts. We went in eyes open and knew that we were the little guy. Our government and central bank should have said hold on a minute this isn’t for us. Say Germany idd benefit from all of this, it is certainly feeling the pain now. That is due to the bigger ideal.

I do agree with you about charity to a point. I think that we need to continue giving aid but with the introduction of an economic stimulus to local communities. A perfect company for this would be Ashoka. They have an excellent model that they employ in Asia. Slowly as the local economy grew we could reduce our input.

Hey it's post 100 and what a long one

Lu Tze

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

I completely agree with you on that. My own argument is that stopping the money will only affect average people that have no power in government.



I don't think it does, because if a government is willing to spend on the military when it is a poor country it's not going to spend on the population even if there is less money there.

I know that stopping the aid will only affect the poor. But how many people more people in the long run might benefit from a regime change? That isn't likely to happen if we are doing the governments work for them in the country

Count Dooku

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

My own argument is that stopping the money will only affect average people that have no power in government.

Should we send Joe Higgins instead of 160 millions?
It will be long term investment :rolleyes: