PDA

View Full Version : APP - Well? What do you think?



Lowaicue
09-28-2009, 02:44 AM
Kenyan economist James Shikwati argues that aid to developing countries does more harm than good. He says that aid promotes corruption and complacency, damages local economies and teaches people to be beggars.

Most Americans are proud of their contribution, in terms on money, to the third world, so what do you think about this 'bust-a-myth' comment. Here's a bit more about the man:

James Shikwati (born 1970) is a Kenyan libertarian economist and Director of the Inter Region Economic Network who promotes freedom of trade as the driving solution to poverty in Africa. He has made comments which imply that aid towards Africa does nothing but harm to their people, based on the central arguments that it is mainly used either by politicians as a tool to manipulate people and influence votes, or as a mechanism for dumping subsidised foreign agricultural products onto local markets at below cost making it nearly impossible for African farmers to compete.

uscitizen
09-28-2009, 09:26 AM
Hmm a different viewpoint from me.

Aid to developing countries creates competition for the US labor market and lowers our standard of living. It does however make a small handfull in the USA a lot of money.

DamnYankee
09-28-2009, 09:35 AM
Shikwati is dead on. That's because most aid goes to the government that then uses it as a club to subdue its citizens.

tinfoil
09-28-2009, 10:08 AM
LOL

Obvious news is obvious.

/MSG/
09-28-2009, 03:06 PM
Agree with the facts be not as much with the principle. I believe that if there were fewer corrupt leaders in 3rd world nations the aid may do some good.

DamnYankee
09-28-2009, 03:20 PM
Agree with the facts be not as much with the principle. I believe that if there were fewer corrupt leaders in 3rd world nations the aid may do some good. We're better off spending the money on special ops to go in there and take out the bastards.

/MSG/
09-28-2009, 03:24 PM
That would cost to much. My idea is better. Arm an African. Instead of adopting them we'll arm them all.

DamnYankee
09-28-2009, 03:38 PM
That would cost to much. My idea is better. Arm an African. Instead of adopting them we'll arm them all. An army can't run on empty bellies and no training. You're advocating suicide.

/MSG/
09-28-2009, 05:23 PM
It's mostly a joke.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-28-2009, 05:31 PM
Taking down every regime we don't like in Africa probably wouldn't go down to well for future Americans.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-28-2009, 05:32 PM
Plus it wouldn't necessarily equal democracy. It would just leave a power vacuum and destabilization.

Cancel 2018. 3
09-28-2009, 05:44 PM
he has a good point, but i am surprised that libs on this site are not disagreeing with him....take out aid to a foreign country and put in aid to our own citizens....

it appears it went over many libs heads

for me....i think some aid is good, our economy is dependent heavily on consumers, so we aid other countries, get them up to a higher standard of living and of course HOPE they buy, buy, buy....whether that is good or bad, it is simply the way it is

uscitizen
09-28-2009, 06:00 PM
he has a good point, but i am surprised that libs on this site are not disagreeing with him....take out aid to a foreign country and put in aid to our own citizens....

it appears it went over many libs heads

for me....i think some aid is good, our economy is dependent heavily on consumers, so we aid other countries, get them up to a higher standard of living and of course HOPE they buy, buy, buy....whether that is good or bad, it is simply the way it is

Naw we hope they provide cheap labor and or products for us to buy.

Us being our corporate ran government.

Yurt, we cannot compete with the cheap labor of 3rd world countires. Our standard of living WILL go DOWN as theirs rises. It is inevitable. Now is the time for you to bring up that pitiful not a zero sum argument?

Cancel 2018. 3
09-28-2009, 07:36 PM
Naw we hope they provide cheap labor and or products for us to buy.

Us being our corporate ran government.

Yurt, we cannot compete with the cheap labor of 3rd world countires. Our standard of living WILL go DOWN as theirs rises. It is inevitable. Now is the time for you to bring up that pitiful not a zero sum argument?

obviously you have your mind made up and what you think my argument will be, so there is no further need to debate this :)

uscitizen
09-28-2009, 07:44 PM
obviously you have your mind made up and what you think my argument will be, so there is no further need to debate this :)

Obviously I was correct ;)

/MSG/
09-28-2009, 08:25 PM
An army can't run on empty bellies and no training. You're advocating suicide.

Even though I was joking, this thread is slow so I'll take a new direction. Logistics of course is important but if everyone is armed then a few problems (parts and ammo for example) are plentiful and easy enough to come across. As for training, that is relative. Even in conventional warfare experience>training every day.

uscitizen
09-28-2009, 10:53 PM
According to NRA nuts we don't need no stinkin army.

/MSG/
09-28-2009, 11:07 PM
According to NRA nuts we don't need no stinkin army.

Not to defend ourselves from an invasion. A navy and air force, but not an army. Not that it isn't helpful.

uscitizen
09-28-2009, 11:46 PM
You mean I can't have my own armed F16 and a Nuclear submarine???

Whaah my constitutional right have been violated.

:)

Timshel
09-29-2009, 12:21 AM
Naw we hope they provide cheap labor and or products for us to buy.

Us being our corporate ran government.

Yurt, we cannot compete with the cheap labor of 3rd world countires. Our standard of living WILL go DOWN as theirs rises. It is inevitable. Now is the time for you to bring up that pitiful not a zero sum argument?

It's not a zero sum game. Nothing pitiful about that argument. It is without a doubt correct.

England was the wealthiest nation in the world. We overtook them. Do you think the standard of living of the English people has gone down?

The only people "impoverished" are their leaders/politicians and that only in terms of power. Who gives a ....?

apple0154
09-29-2009, 03:56 AM
Kenyan economist James Shikwati argues that aid to developing countries does more harm than good. He says that aid promotes corruption and complacency, damages local economies and teaches people to be beggars.

Most Americans are proud of their contribution, in terms on money, to the third world, so what do you think about this 'bust-a-myth' comment. Here's a bit more about the man:

James Shikwati (born 1970) is a Kenyan libertarian economist and Director of the Inter Region Economic Network who promotes freedom of trade as the driving solution to poverty in Africa. He has made comments which imply that aid towards Africa does nothing but harm to their people, based on the central arguments that it is mainly used either by politicians as a tool to manipulate people and influence votes, or as a mechanism for dumping subsidised foreign agricultural products onto local markets at below cost making it nearly impossible for African farmers to compete.

There's never a shortage of excuses why one should not help another. I've heard people say never give money to a panhandler as it encourages laziness, dependence, etc.

In the end it all boils down to cheap, stingy bastards.

On that note I'm out of here.

Have a great day, folks. :)

egordon0315
09-29-2009, 04:57 AM
There's never a shortage of excuses why one should not help another. I've heard people say never give money to a panhandler as it encourages laziness, dependence, etc.

In the end it all boils down to cheap, stingy bastards.

On that note I'm out of here.

Have a great day, folks. :)

I'm sure that is what my lazy, no-account brother-in-law said about me the last time he had his hand out.

(That was sarcasm.)

/MSG/
09-29-2009, 08:29 AM
You mean I can't have my own armed F16 and a Nuclear submarine???

Whaah my constitutional right have been violated.

:)

I misunderstood you, my apologies. I thought you were saying that we did not need an army as the nations gun owning population would more than be able to defend our nation.

AS for your constitutional right to a fighter jet or submarine, sure why not? You can own both, though it is ridiculously expensive to do so. As for the arms to said machines those are what is regulated and in my personal opinion (with the exception of nuclear munitions) should not be. They should be readily accessible to any non violent citizen of this country.

Lowaicue
09-29-2009, 08:21 PM
Here is an interview with Shikwati. Those of you who have shown the ability to discuss the topic, without resorting to the childish stupidity common on other threads, might be interested. It's a bit too long to paste.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

tinfoil
09-29-2009, 09:40 PM
There's never a shortage of excuses why one should not help another. I've heard people say never give money to a panhandler as it encourages laziness, dependence, etc.

In the end it all boils down to cheap, stingy bastards.

On that note I'm out of here.

Have a great day, folks. :)

You don't give them money, you buy them some food. Give them money, and they buy booze. You are an ignorant one, aren't you?

Lowaicue
09-29-2009, 09:52 PM
You don't give them money, you buy them some food. Give them money, and they buy booze. You are an ignorant one, aren't you?

If you want to do something I suggest you lobby your food stores to buy their products. We already gave them food in the shape of the food WE like and can grow. Arrogance gone mad once again. They need to grow and harvest their own food and then find a market for it.
Here's another myth-busting bit of info:

http://kenvironews.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/solving-kenya%E2%80%99s-food-crisis-one-indigenous-crop-at-a-time/

/MSG/
09-29-2009, 11:32 PM
You don't give them money, you buy them some food. Give them money, and they buy booze. You are an ignorant one, aren't you?

There is such a thing as a professional panhandler. They're the reason I never give out anything except advice.

Don Quixote
09-29-2009, 11:53 PM
We're better off spending the money on special ops to go in there and take out the bastards.

under current policy against assassination, our hands are tied...officially that is - but caught in the act cia seems to ineffective anyway

Don Quixote
09-29-2009, 11:56 PM
I misunderstood you, my apologies. I thought you were saying that we did not need an army as the nations gun owning population would more than be able to defend our nation.

AS for your constitutional right to a fighter jet or submarine, sure why not? You can own both, though it is ridiculously expensive to do so. As for the arms to said machines those are what is regulated and in my personal opinion (with the exception of nuclear munitions) should not be. They should be readily accessible to any non violent citizen of this country.

what about non-nuclear arms for the f-16 or sub...not to mention certain classified equipment - of course if you agree not to sell the classified equipment to foreign nations...

/MSG/
09-30-2009, 12:00 AM
If the government can own it, so can I is my way of thinking when it comes to arms. Not that many (if anyone) would be able to afford such ventures.

Don Quixote
09-30-2009, 12:01 AM
If the government can own it, so can I is my way of thinking when it comes to arms. Not that many (if anyone) would be able to afford such ventures.

what about a corporation or consortium

TuTu Monroe
09-30-2009, 07:46 AM
You don't give them money, you buy them some food. Give them money, and they buy booze. You are an ignorant one, aren't you?

For a liberal, he's actually pretty smart.

/MSG/
09-30-2009, 08:08 AM
what about a corporation or consortium

They already can.

apple0154
09-30-2009, 07:34 PM
You don't give them money, you buy them some food. Give them money, and they buy booze. You are an ignorant one, aren't you?

It never fails. The preachers of freedom, the preachers of "individuals and not others (government, your neighbor, community groups) know what they want", never fail to show the opposite. They can't differentiate between "helping" and "interfering".

Just for the record "helping" is doing what the person asking for help wants done. Not what the helper thinks needs to be done.

apple0154
09-30-2009, 07:38 PM
For a liberal, he's actually pretty smart.

Awww. That's just 'cause ya like me.:hug:

Don Quixote
09-30-2009, 10:28 PM
They already can.

would not it be more fun if corporations could declare war on each other for territorial exploitation rights and use surplus us military arms and munitions...non-nuclear that is - us various desert locations maybe...or military reservations

uscitizen
09-30-2009, 10:37 PM
would not it be more fun if corporations could declare war on each other for territorial exploitation rights and use surplus us military arms and munitions...non-nuclear that is - us various desert locations maybe...or military reservations

They would get their cannon fodder from Kelly Services?

/MSG/
09-30-2009, 11:30 PM
would not it be more fun if corporations could declare war on each other for territorial exploitation rights and use surplus us military arms and munitions...non-nuclear that is - us various desert locations maybe...or military reservations

No that would be stupid. Most corporates aren't in any kind of shape for war.

Don Quixote
09-30-2009, 11:56 PM
They would get their cannon fodder from Kelly Services?


retired military....

Don Quixote
09-30-2009, 11:57 PM
No that would be stupid. Most corporates aren't in any kind of shape for war.

no,the major banks are doing fine...they are too big to fail...

/MSG/
09-30-2009, 11:57 PM
Nor are people who retire from the military most of the time.

Don Quixote
10-01-2009, 12:22 AM
Nor are people who retire from the military most of the time.

which is why fewer retire

ever read a book called the cold cash war