No more Aid

Hootanany

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002319/UK-aid-cash-helped-African-dictator-buy-30m-jet.html#ixzz1Ox9LVRso



This is disgusting

JustinDee

Yes but its only a newspaper.

Joey the lips

There will be always cases where aid and funds are misused. Chearlie haughy thought us that...

But i dont agree you give up on the needy just because of corruption .

Ellis Dee

Hootanany wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002319/UK-aid-cash-helped-African-dictator-buy-30m-jet.html#ixzz1Ox9LVRso



This is disgusting

Yes, but the Daily Hatemail always is. It panders to the basest, meanest, self-righteous instincts in people, most of whom would need to do a lot of self-improvement work to begin to ascend to the level of CHAVS.

Development aid is not the problem. It is actually enlightened self-interest to raise as many people as possible on the planet out of poverty, which is why we in the prosperous countries should be giving more of it, and also agreeing to fairer trade terms. On the other hand, our aid must be much more carefully focused and systems put in place to ensure that it goes to those in need rather than to corrupt dictators, many of whom are pandered to by our own leaders, whose interests they often serve.

The real pity would be that dictators like the one mentioned in the article will be used as an excuse not to give anything by those who whinny about "helping people in our own country", but many of whom in reality wouldn't give anyone, even their starving next-door neighbour, the steam off their piss on a frosty morning.:rolleyes:

Hootanany

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes but its only a newspaper.

Yeah but his people are starving and he buys a Jet.
Stop aid now.

Ellis Dee

Hootanany wrote: »

Yeah but his people are starving and he buys a jet stop aid now

What is a jet stop aid now and how much does one cost?

Hootanany

Oh no the Grammar Nazis

not even wrong

Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni bought the top-of-the-range Gulfstream G550 private plane in the same year ministers gave his poverty- ravaged country £70million.

So in other words British aid money wasn't used by an African dictator to buy a £30million jet.

Ellis Dee

Hootanany wrote: »

Oh no the Grammar Nazis

Not quite. (full stop). Open goal. (full stop) Kick. (full stop). In the net. (full stop)

Lockstep

I lost interest as soon as I saw it was a link to the Daily Fail.

Vizzy

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Not quite (full stop) Open goal (full stop) Kick (full stop) In the net (full stop)

FYP

sarkozy

UKAid funds may have been squandered through corruption and mismanagement, but an equally important story is how the new British government is politicising aid again. It's making it an instrument of foreign policy.

At least Irish Aid has avoided that.

Using aid as a foreign policy instrument is one of the fastest routes to aid becoming a form of corruption. Here we have a weird dilemma: the public (and journos) more against corruption yet more aid will go to corruption as it's now a foreign policy goal. Expect to see more of it.

Hootanany

Vizzy wrote: »

FYP

Lol:D

Ellis Dee

Hootanany wrote: »

Lol:D

I said it both ways just in case it was hard to grasp.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Hootanany

Hootanany wrote: »

Yeah but his people are starving and he buys a Jet.
Stop aid now.

Happy now.

Ellis Dee

Hootanany wrote: »

Happy now.

Ecstatically! However, the solution is not to stop aid. The solution is to stop aid going to corrupt politicians and officials and ensure that it goes instead to help raise the poor out of poverty.:)

Ireland has problems, but they pale into insignificance compared with what one sees in some parts of the world.

Remember the anecdote about the fellow who was moaning because he had no shoes - until he saw someone who had no feet.

Hootanany

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Ecstatically! However, the solution is not to stop aid. The solution is to stop aid going to corrupt politicians and officials and ensure that it goes instead to help raise the poor out of poverty.:)

Ireland has problems, but they pale into insignificance compared with what one sees in some parts of the world.

Remember the anecdote about the fellow who was moaning because he had no shoes - until he saw someone who had no feet.

True

Manach

False.
At least to that anecdote. Taxpayers have the right to critise what they regard as incorrect spending of government monies, the attitude of "mustn't grumble or not rock the boat" is how we slept-walked into this economic mess.

However saying that, I'd agree that some form of targeted aid to development projects is warranted <provided it is not also spend as an excuse of certain politicians such as Mr. Gilmore to travel to Africa.>.

cavedave

Ellis Dee

However, the solution is not to stop aid. The solution is to stop aid going to corrupt politicians and officials and ensure that it goes instead to help raise the poor out of poverty.

One explanation as to how this aid becomes guns and planes is that even a dictator has to supply certain public goods to remain a dictator. If doners come along and build the hospitals and schools he would have to build anyway that means he can go off and spend other money on guns and planes.

Your second claim involves showing that aid really does raise the poor out of poverty. This has proven to be very difficult to show. The head of Trocaire said on the Frontline a few weeks ago that free trade and an end to inequalities in trade would be better than development money. Surely this should be what we fight for rather than development aid then?

Ellis Dee

cavedave wrote: »

One explanation as to how this aid becomes guns and planes is that even a dictator has to supply certain public goods to remain a dictator. If doners come along and build the hospitals and schools he would have to build anyway that means he can go off and spend other money on guns and planes.

Your second claim involves showing that aid really does raise the poor out of poverty. This has proven to be very difficult to show. The head of Trocaire said on the Frontline a few weeks ago that free trade and an end to inequalities in trade would be better than development money. Surely this should be what we fight for rather than development aid then?

I weary of pointing out the same thing! And I believe I have said it in an earlier post on this thread. However, aid is also necessary as well, at least initially, perhaps to provide some kind of seed/start capital and also to deal with exceptional circumstances, such as those caused by natural disasters and wars.:cool:

cavedave

Ellis Dee

However, aid is also necessary as well, at least initially, perhaps to provide some kind of seed/start capital and also to deal with exceptional circumstances, such as those caused by natural disasters and wars.

How long is initially though? Foreign aid has been going on for decades. Aid for exceptional disasters does have good evidence to support it. But Ireland aid budget does not ll go to emergency aid.

If everyone thinks improvements in free trade would be better than aid why are we giving away hundreds of millions in aid? The vast majority of economists think free trade would be better for us as well. If something helps others more than spending millions and not cost 700 million but be a net improvement for us we would have to be taking crazy pills not to do that before spending all that money.

Justin Kilcullen 48:18 in the Frontline 30/05/11 here http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1099618
"Development aid is what we give to the developing world because we do not give them a
decent deal in trade, because we have screwed them on their debts, because the flow of resources...
lets change the economic structures that keeps these people poor thats the long term answer"

sarkozy

cavedave wrote: »

How long is initially though? Foreign aid has been going on for decades. Aid for exceptional disasters does have good evidence to support it. But Ireland aid budget does not ll go to emergency aid.

If everyone thinks improvements in free trade would be better than aid why are we giving away hundreds of millions in aid? The vast majority of economists think free trade would be better for us as well. If something helps others more than spending millions and not cost 700 million but be a net improvement for us we would have to be taking crazy pills not to do that before spending all that money.

Justin Kilcullen 48:18 in the Frontline 30/05/11 here http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1099618
"Development aid is what we give to the developing world because we do not give them a
decent deal in trade, because we have screwed them on their debts, because the flow of resources...
lets change the economic structures that keeps these people poor thats the long term answer"

Free trade doesn't work so well. The free trade argument is partly based on a fiction that two countries trading in goods they make best means both benefit equally. The evidence just doesn't stack up.

In nearly all cases, developing countries encounter declining terms of trade. African countries 'specialise' in selling us raw materials, but that only results in them getting a lower price for more exports while the developed countries reap the windfall of value-added processed goods.

Liberal economists then say, 'Well, this didn't work because market x wasn't truly free', but the 'hetrodox' evidence shows that it's the nature of the present political-economic system - capitalism - which makes this happen. It's an in-built tendency within the system. I say 'political-economic' because commerce is always political, it always involves power. What has always happened is the country exporting raw materials gets stuck in a poverty trap.

Joseph Stiglitz says market failure is due to the unequal sharing of 'information' - he doesn't go far enough: it's the use and abuse of power.

Therefore, at the global level, the global trade rules are rigged in the favour of developed countries. At the national and local level, governments, corporations and local companies use their power to bend things in their sole interest - profit - and exploit relatively disempowered and poor people.

So we have to be very careful when we say the answer is 'trade, not aid'. If we accept that our present system will continue to produce inequality and poverty, welfare will continue to be needed until we find a different way or we pollute our way out of existence.