http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/a ... overty.stm
A very good summary on the matter. Just to summarize the key points:
1. The EU has doubled its aid to Africa - 20 billion euros roughly.
2. The G-8 has relieved debt for 18 HIPC countries - roughly 20 billion dollars as well. Freeing up 1.5 billion dollars in interest paid each year.
3. African debt is roughly 1 trillion dollars and the net capital outflow is great due to the very high interest rates.
4. Africa is basically screwed as they borrow money at rates of 5 - 10 - 15% but the savings interest rates as of today are no more than 3.5%. So they make a net loss.
The question i pose is that should the entire continent of Africa have its debt written off completely? Secondly is it fair to provide conditionalities to have debt written off?
G-8, Africa and Debt
G-8, Africa and Debt
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
I could be wrong, but didn't some countries (including Great Brittan of the G-8) wanted to lighten the dept of at least 38 countries? I know at least 68 countries on the African continent hold a large depth, but the G-8 will never lift the load of every state in depth.
[QUOTE=CM]The question i pose is that should the entire continent of Africa have its debt written off completely? Secondly is it fair to provide conditionalities to have debt written off?[/QUOTE]
No, not the entire continent. For now, I think it's only sensible to write off the dept of the countries whom have a reasonable democracy, or whom have shown to invest and use the money given to them in a proper way. You shouldn't give countries, ruled by dictators or puppet regimes the chance to put even more money in their pocket. If a government is corrupt, it will have little to no use to remove the depth they have.
I am well aware that not removing the depth of such countries will only lead to more poverty and extortion among the population by their leaders. However, giving these leaders more money (i.e. scrapping the depth will give the countries' rulers more money to invest in their own states, or in their own pocket) will only lengthen and strengthen their rule. Consequently, you will have to look which of the two options will prove to be the lesser evil over the long-term.
I, personally, hold to opinion that in the end, if a country is ruled so badly or of the population lives under extreme and severe circumstances, it will ultimately revolt against its rulers. And if that doesn’t happen, the international community should drive the oppressive rulers out or, at least, weaken them (there are enough methods to reach this goal. The question, though, is if every country is willing to help).
Basically, what I am saying is that you shouldn’t lift the depth of countries that are bound to use the extra money they will thus receive for their own corrupt government, or to strengthen their own position in the country.
[QUOTE=CM]The question i pose is that should the entire continent of Africa have its debt written off completely? Secondly is it fair to provide conditionalities to have debt written off?[/QUOTE]
No, not the entire continent. For now, I think it's only sensible to write off the dept of the countries whom have a reasonable democracy, or whom have shown to invest and use the money given to them in a proper way. You shouldn't give countries, ruled by dictators or puppet regimes the chance to put even more money in their pocket. If a government is corrupt, it will have little to no use to remove the depth they have.
I am well aware that not removing the depth of such countries will only lead to more poverty and extortion among the population by their leaders. However, giving these leaders more money (i.e. scrapping the depth will give the countries' rulers more money to invest in their own states, or in their own pocket) will only lengthen and strengthen their rule. Consequently, you will have to look which of the two options will prove to be the lesser evil over the long-term.
I, personally, hold to opinion that in the end, if a country is ruled so badly or of the population lives under extreme and severe circumstances, it will ultimately revolt against its rulers. And if that doesn’t happen, the international community should drive the oppressive rulers out or, at least, weaken them (there are enough methods to reach this goal. The question, though, is if every country is willing to help).
Basically, what I am saying is that you shouldn’t lift the depth of countries that are bound to use the extra money they will thus receive for their own corrupt government, or to strengthen their own position in the country.
"Sometimes Dreams are wiser than waking"
Economic politics have never been my strong suit, but here goes anyway...
I don't feel that the entire continent should have it's debt lifted, nor do I feel that, while Styze's idea works towards Western thought process, people should suffer further due to poor leadership.
What needs to occur is a complete re-evaluation of how debt is handled. It is ludicris to believe that African nations, in their current state, will ever be able to whittle away their debt, much less eliminate it completly, not with how economic policies exist. Interest is too high, and the debt has grown too large. My suggestion would be to slash the existing debt in half, and do the same for the interest rates. In addition, and this would require great costs at the expense of the UN (which should be taking a far more active role in these matters), all management of borrowed money (whether it from the IMF or World Bank) should be handled through a conjoined system of UN officials, and country leaders.
I realize that is more than likely a pipe-dream, and would not feasibly happen, but I see not other means to do more than simply bring attention to the financial issues plagueing Africa.
I don't feel that the entire continent should have it's debt lifted, nor do I feel that, while Styze's idea works towards Western thought process, people should suffer further due to poor leadership.
What needs to occur is a complete re-evaluation of how debt is handled. It is ludicris to believe that African nations, in their current state, will ever be able to whittle away their debt, much less eliminate it completly, not with how economic policies exist. Interest is too high, and the debt has grown too large. My suggestion would be to slash the existing debt in half, and do the same for the interest rates. In addition, and this would require great costs at the expense of the UN (which should be taking a far more active role in these matters), all management of borrowed money (whether it from the IMF or World Bank) should be handled through a conjoined system of UN officials, and country leaders.
I realize that is more than likely a pipe-dream, and would not feasibly happen, but I see not other means to do more than simply bring attention to the financial issues plagueing Africa.
-
Cuchulain82
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:44 pm
- Location: Law School library, Vermont, USA
- Contact:
I think that something has to be done about debt in developing nations, specifically Africa. If the various nations in Africa were companies they would all be bankrupt and long forgotten by now. However, there is no mechanism for this in the international political arena. Since they have been recognized by the UN since the 1950s, African nations are permanent now. There is basically no mechanism, policially speaking, to do things like redraft boundries, deal with failed states, or otherwise get involved with domestic issues.
This causes a problem because there is no doubt that the failure of states taxes the entire global system. I believe that part of this is systemic- the methods of lending money to nations (involving limited conditionality) have worked pretty well since the mid 1990's. Prior to that it was a disaster, with some critics likening the debt burden to indentured servitude. Today some nations exist solely by borrowing money and depending on foreign aid. Foreign aid dependence is a rant for a different time; with that said, all experts agree that there is essentially a 0% probability of highly indebted nations repaying their loans fully. So, we should forgive the debt, right?
The big problem with forgiving debt is that this is moeny that was loaned by banks. These banks have vast sums of money set aside just for making loans, but if these loans are defaulted, especially en masse, there exists the possibility that it could have massive consequences in financial markets around the world. No one is really sure how vast the consequences could (might?) be, but no one wants to find out the hard way. If the international monetary system is like a building, this would be like messing with the foundation- it can be done, but if not done well could destroy the whole building.
Personally, I don't agree with this gloom and doom appraisal, but I tend to be optomistic. I think that the UN took a huge leap with the HIPC initiative, and that since the collapse of Argentina the World Bank has been forced to figure out how to deal with situations that leave them powerless in a way they never had to deal with before.
I also think there is a tremendous moral argument for focusing on this. The truth is that Africa made many a white man very, very, very rich. European nations conquered Africa politically and economically, and the US today is doing something similar. We (the western nations) are directly responsible for the poverty in Africa and now we have to try to clean up our mess.
Furthermore, I think there is a huge strategic argument for dealing with extreme African poverty. Since we're talking straight, I'll say this: Brand USA has fallen on hard times internationally recently, especially in the Muslim world. People today in Africa still think that the US is the land of opportunity. It is in our best interests to make sure that doesn't change. Africa is 40% muslim by some estimations, and imo it is much better to make friends with potential enemies than it is to fight those enemies in 15 years.
I studied International Politics at school and even dabbled in IPE. My girlfriend happens to be an Africanist who is right now in the process of getting her grad degree in IPED (International Political Economy and Development). Because of all this, I feel like I should have an especially nuanced position, but personally I feel like we should all listen to one person:
Bono.
(he was interviewed on public TV here in NYC last night about this very subject- did you see it Fas?)
I know, I know, he's a rock star not an expert. However, he has made the eradication of extreme poverty his personal crusade, and he has achieved surprising results. Ending extreme poverty is a goal that can be achieved if we (the West) have the will. We can fund development that will stop malaria, AIDS, waterborne disease, malnutrition, deteriorating infrastructure, lack of education, and almost all the other problems that plague Africa currently. Honestly, these goals aren't pie-in-the-sky idealist dreams; they really can be achieved. There are very smart people who want nothing more than to figure out how to make Africa flourish, and I think all they need is more support.
Bono's message is that it is possible to end extreme poverty in the world at a relatively small expense. The figure that he is looking for is $50 billion (USA) from the entire globe. He wants the US to increase our commitment to $12 billion total, up from the current $8 billion. IMO, that $4 billion commitment is not much money in Washington DC terms, the equivalent of about 1-2% of the DoD budget, or less than 5% of the cost of the Iraq war.
This causes a problem because there is no doubt that the failure of states taxes the entire global system. I believe that part of this is systemic- the methods of lending money to nations (involving limited conditionality) have worked pretty well since the mid 1990's. Prior to that it was a disaster, with some critics likening the debt burden to indentured servitude. Today some nations exist solely by borrowing money and depending on foreign aid. Foreign aid dependence is a rant for a different time; with that said, all experts agree that there is essentially a 0% probability of highly indebted nations repaying their loans fully. So, we should forgive the debt, right?
The big problem with forgiving debt is that this is moeny that was loaned by banks. These banks have vast sums of money set aside just for making loans, but if these loans are defaulted, especially en masse, there exists the possibility that it could have massive consequences in financial markets around the world. No one is really sure how vast the consequences could (might?) be, but no one wants to find out the hard way. If the international monetary system is like a building, this would be like messing with the foundation- it can be done, but if not done well could destroy the whole building.
Personally, I don't agree with this gloom and doom appraisal, but I tend to be optomistic. I think that the UN took a huge leap with the HIPC initiative, and that since the collapse of Argentina the World Bank has been forced to figure out how to deal with situations that leave them powerless in a way they never had to deal with before.
I also think there is a tremendous moral argument for focusing on this. The truth is that Africa made many a white man very, very, very rich. European nations conquered Africa politically and economically, and the US today is doing something similar. We (the western nations) are directly responsible for the poverty in Africa and now we have to try to clean up our mess.
Furthermore, I think there is a huge strategic argument for dealing with extreme African poverty. Since we're talking straight, I'll say this: Brand USA has fallen on hard times internationally recently, especially in the Muslim world. People today in Africa still think that the US is the land of opportunity. It is in our best interests to make sure that doesn't change. Africa is 40% muslim by some estimations, and imo it is much better to make friends with potential enemies than it is to fight those enemies in 15 years.
I studied International Politics at school and even dabbled in IPE. My girlfriend happens to be an Africanist who is right now in the process of getting her grad degree in IPED (International Political Economy and Development). Because of all this, I feel like I should have an especially nuanced position, but personally I feel like we should all listen to one person:
Bono.
(he was interviewed on public TV here in NYC last night about this very subject- did you see it Fas?)
I know, I know, he's a rock star not an expert. However, he has made the eradication of extreme poverty his personal crusade, and he has achieved surprising results. Ending extreme poverty is a goal that can be achieved if we (the West) have the will. We can fund development that will stop malaria, AIDS, waterborne disease, malnutrition, deteriorating infrastructure, lack of education, and almost all the other problems that plague Africa currently. Honestly, these goals aren't pie-in-the-sky idealist dreams; they really can be achieved. There are very smart people who want nothing more than to figure out how to make Africa flourish, and I think all they need is more support.
Bono's message is that it is possible to end extreme poverty in the world at a relatively small expense. The figure that he is looking for is $50 billion (USA) from the entire globe. He wants the US to increase our commitment to $12 billion total, up from the current $8 billion. IMO, that $4 billion commitment is not much money in Washington DC terms, the equivalent of about 1-2% of the DoD budget, or less than 5% of the cost of the Iraq war.
Custodia legis
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=CM]
The question i pose is that should the entire continent of Africa have its debt written off completely? Secondly is it fair to provide conditionalities to have debt written off?[/QUOTE]
Answer to First question:
Why? If you forgive africa debt, you'll have pressure from everyone to forgive debts. IMF keeps poking poor countries to improve their finances with what they have and with good economical measures. Africa must have some of its debts relieved because they're completely bankrupt, then re-organize its finnances and try to improve their political and economic planning. You tell me: that's hard as hell. Yes it is, and even with many differences, Brazil, for once, has achieved lots of achievements in those areas.
Answer to the 2nd question:
Depends. Africa cant pay, wont pay and millions of people are really screwed cause of that. What you do? You forgive some of the debts, they improve, and the rest of the world wont complain. But now, forgiving Argentina or Brazilian debts would be folly. Also, forgiving Africa debt all at once too. The market wouldnt look at that with good eye, specially cause they'll be the ones to pay the debt.
One cool iniciative has been made by the Brazilian president Lula. He is creating several trade agreements and tax reduction to african products, and that may be a very safer way to improve Africa problems. They also have - even though a few - some competitive goods to sell, and they have a potential purchase market for the future. Whomever starts to create connections with them will be remembered in the future, when africa may be tons better than it is right now.
The question i pose is that should the entire continent of Africa have its debt written off completely? Secondly is it fair to provide conditionalities to have debt written off?[/QUOTE]
Answer to First question:
Why? If you forgive africa debt, you'll have pressure from everyone to forgive debts. IMF keeps poking poor countries to improve their finances with what they have and with good economical measures. Africa must have some of its debts relieved because they're completely bankrupt, then re-organize its finnances and try to improve their political and economic planning. You tell me: that's hard as hell. Yes it is, and even with many differences, Brazil, for once, has achieved lots of achievements in those areas.
Answer to the 2nd question:
Depends. Africa cant pay, wont pay and millions of people are really screwed cause of that. What you do? You forgive some of the debts, they improve, and the rest of the world wont complain. But now, forgiving Argentina or Brazilian debts would be folly. Also, forgiving Africa debt all at once too. The market wouldnt look at that with good eye, specially cause they'll be the ones to pay the debt.
One cool iniciative has been made by the Brazilian president Lula. He is creating several trade agreements and tax reduction to african products, and that may be a very safer way to improve Africa problems. They also have - even though a few - some competitive goods to sell, and they have a potential purchase market for the future. Whomever starts to create connections with them will be remembered in the future, when africa may be tons better than it is right now.
Flesh to stone ain't permanent, it seems.
I'm opposed to eliminating debt. There's a huge amount of money tied up in africa. I am in favour of stopping interest.
I'm opposed to lending any more money to any african country. It goes to the governments, which, by in large, serve the people little.
I'm in favour of spending International aid money in concrete, western derived goods and services. ie) 3 billions dollars to aids research, 1 billion to ensure clean drinking water and anti-malaria drugs available across africa.
Make clean water available, make drugs available through international agencies like Mediciens Sans Frontier and the Red Cross, then stay right the heck out.
Western powers have no right decreeing what is right and wrong anywhere in the world.
As for eliminating poverty, lets deal with our own inner cities, crumbling social and medical security programs.
To eliminate pain and suffering, lets increase our armed forces and our willingnes to use them to put down genocides, forced exodus's and corruption.
I'm sick and tired of hearing everyone moaning about the "state of affairs" in africa, and how the western world has so terribly exploited people. If we start talking about who exploited who and how long to take it back, Italy would be a very poor country. Right romans? How about Greece? the Persians? That's where it started, and it's unfair to blame modern nations for following what happened to them. It's just highly unfortunate that today's poverty stricken nations have no one left to prey on except each other.
The first world countries have the option now of stepping in, and setting things "right" by the way we see them, which probably isn't right. Or we can sit back, provide the best health and security we can, and stay out.
It's a mess, but theres little to be done that will make it better until the leaders of african nations start leading their people somewhere positive.
There's a tremendous amount of money in africa, jewels, gold, oil, vast tracts of land. We just have to keep our hands off it long enough to let africa grow.
I'm opposed to lending any more money to any african country. It goes to the governments, which, by in large, serve the people little.
I'm in favour of spending International aid money in concrete, western derived goods and services. ie) 3 billions dollars to aids research, 1 billion to ensure clean drinking water and anti-malaria drugs available across africa.
Make clean water available, make drugs available through international agencies like Mediciens Sans Frontier and the Red Cross, then stay right the heck out.
Western powers have no right decreeing what is right and wrong anywhere in the world.
As for eliminating poverty, lets deal with our own inner cities, crumbling social and medical security programs.
To eliminate pain and suffering, lets increase our armed forces and our willingnes to use them to put down genocides, forced exodus's and corruption.
I'm sick and tired of hearing everyone moaning about the "state of affairs" in africa, and how the western world has so terribly exploited people. If we start talking about who exploited who and how long to take it back, Italy would be a very poor country. Right romans? How about Greece? the Persians? That's where it started, and it's unfair to blame modern nations for following what happened to them. It's just highly unfortunate that today's poverty stricken nations have no one left to prey on except each other.
The first world countries have the option now of stepping in, and setting things "right" by the way we see them, which probably isn't right. Or we can sit back, provide the best health and security we can, and stay out.
It's a mess, but theres little to be done that will make it better until the leaders of african nations start leading their people somewhere positive.
There's a tremendous amount of money in africa, jewels, gold, oil, vast tracts of land. We just have to keep our hands off it long enough to let africa grow.
The waves came crashing in like blindness.
So I just stood and listened.
So I just stood and listened.
-
Cuchulain82
- Posts: 1229
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:44 pm
- Location: Law School library, Vermont, USA
- Contact:
@Obsidian
I think that much of what you said is oversimplified. By all means you (like everyone) are entitled to your own opinion. However, I like to think of this problem in terms of potential value for the money spent. As I said in my first post, there are many different reasons for investing in Africa and I find many of them compelling.
Edit- Unfortunately, I am leaving for the weekend in a few minutes. If I don't respond to a post you make, please don't take offense.
@CM
I realized that I never answered the question of conditionality. I will give you a general answer. I think that conditionality is a good idea, but really only when used as an economic incentive. Countries (like compaines and individuals) seem to respond poorly to orders but well to goals. And, that is all an incentive is- a goal. If debt remission conditionality is okay for mortgages (ie- paying off the principle early), it should be okay for countries too.
I think that much of what you said is oversimplified. By all means you (like everyone) are entitled to your own opinion. However, I like to think of this problem in terms of potential value for the money spent. As I said in my first post, there are many different reasons for investing in Africa and I find many of them compelling.
Edit- Unfortunately, I am leaving for the weekend in a few minutes. If I don't respond to a post you make, please don't take offense.
@CM
I realized that I never answered the question of conditionality. I will give you a general answer. I think that conditionality is a good idea, but really only when used as an economic incentive. Countries (like compaines and individuals) seem to respond poorly to orders but well to goals. And, that is all an incentive is- a goal. If debt remission conditionality is okay for mortgages (ie- paying off the principle early), it should be okay for countries too.
Custodia legis
[QUOTE=Obsidian]I'm opposed to eliminating debt. There's a huge amount of money tied up in africa. I am in favour of stopping interest.
I'm opposed to lending any more money to any african country. It goes to the governments, which, by in large, serve the people little.
I'm in favour of spending International aid money in concrete, western derived goods and services. ie) 3 billions dollars to aids research, 1 billion to ensure clean drinking water and anti-malaria drugs available across africa.
Make clean water available, make drugs available through international agencies like Mediciens Sans Frontier and the Red Cross, then stay right the heck out.
Western powers have no right decreeing what is right and wrong anywhere in the world.
As for eliminating poverty, lets deal with our own inner cities, crumbling social and medical security programs.
To eliminate pain and suffering, lets increase our armed forces and our willingnes to use them to put down genocides, forced exodus's and corruption.
I'm sick and tired of hearing everyone moaning about the "state of affairs" in africa, and how the western world has so terribly exploited people. If we start talking about who exploited who and how long to take it back, Italy would be a very poor country. Right romans? How about Greece? the Persians? That's where it started, and it's unfair to blame modern nations for following what happened to them. It's just highly unfortunate that today's poverty stricken nations have no one left to prey on except each other.
The first world countries have the option now of stepping in, and setting things "right" by the way we see them, which probably isn't right. Or we can sit back, provide the best health and security we can, and stay out.
It's a mess, but theres little to be done that will make it better until the leaders of african nations start leading their people somewhere positive.
There's a tremendous amount of money in africa, jewels, gold, oil, vast tracts of land. We just have to keep our hands off it long enough to let africa grow.[/QUOTE]
Obsidian, the exploitation of countries by other countries can of course be strecthed back as far as one wishes. But in the current state of affairs, the countries who have exploited Africa in recent history (the g-8 for example) are the most affluent, while millions die daily in southern and central African countries unable to supply basic living conditions for citizens.
Have you any sources to suggest that, for example, $1 billion dollars could be in any way adequate to supply all malnourished Africans with adequate water? Or your other financial propositions?
Do you truly believe that medical and social security programs are 'crumbling' in any meaningul sense insside the G-8 countries compared with Ethiopoa, Rwanda, Uganda and so on?
I'm opposed to lending any more money to any african country. It goes to the governments, which, by in large, serve the people little.
I'm in favour of spending International aid money in concrete, western derived goods and services. ie) 3 billions dollars to aids research, 1 billion to ensure clean drinking water and anti-malaria drugs available across africa.
Make clean water available, make drugs available through international agencies like Mediciens Sans Frontier and the Red Cross, then stay right the heck out.
Western powers have no right decreeing what is right and wrong anywhere in the world.
As for eliminating poverty, lets deal with our own inner cities, crumbling social and medical security programs.
To eliminate pain and suffering, lets increase our armed forces and our willingnes to use them to put down genocides, forced exodus's and corruption.
I'm sick and tired of hearing everyone moaning about the "state of affairs" in africa, and how the western world has so terribly exploited people. If we start talking about who exploited who and how long to take it back, Italy would be a very poor country. Right romans? How about Greece? the Persians? That's where it started, and it's unfair to blame modern nations for following what happened to them. It's just highly unfortunate that today's poverty stricken nations have no one left to prey on except each other.
The first world countries have the option now of stepping in, and setting things "right" by the way we see them, which probably isn't right. Or we can sit back, provide the best health and security we can, and stay out.
It's a mess, but theres little to be done that will make it better until the leaders of african nations start leading their people somewhere positive.
There's a tremendous amount of money in africa, jewels, gold, oil, vast tracts of land. We just have to keep our hands off it long enough to let africa grow.[/QUOTE]
Obsidian, the exploitation of countries by other countries can of course be strecthed back as far as one wishes. But in the current state of affairs, the countries who have exploited Africa in recent history (the g-8 for example) are the most affluent, while millions die daily in southern and central African countries unable to supply basic living conditions for citizens.
Have you any sources to suggest that, for example, $1 billion dollars could be in any way adequate to supply all malnourished Africans with adequate water? Or your other financial propositions?
Do you truly believe that medical and social security programs are 'crumbling' in any meaningul sense insside the G-8 countries compared with Ethiopoa, Rwanda, Uganda and so on?
SYMISTANI COMMUNIST
@Cuch
You are of course correct. My opinion is ver simplified, mostly because I lack both the education and the skill to grasp the whole situation of what is going on there, and I doubt if anyone truely can have a complete, informed concept of the situation.
But noted, mine is more simplified than it should be.
- Note, I am playing a little bit of devils advocate here, adding a bit of bite to the debate.
@Frogus- My numbers were not based on any real data, just figures, giving statements on what I feel, based purely on intuition, what can be done with a given some of money.
But there are billions of dollars of aid flowing into the impovershed countries you mention, and frankly, I don't get the sense much of it is going to people who need it most.
Social security systems exist in the G-8 states, and are crumbling. It's debatable if any equivalents exist Uganda, Rwanda and the like.
We have poor at home, brought about by the ludicrously low minimum wage, high land taxes, and devastating interest on loans. While we see the difference in wealth in countries, it exists in the first world citizenry. We are rapidly seeing a system in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
I have no solution for that. Just saying it exists everywhere.
You are of course correct. My opinion is ver simplified, mostly because I lack both the education and the skill to grasp the whole situation of what is going on there, and I doubt if anyone truely can have a complete, informed concept of the situation.
But noted, mine is more simplified than it should be.
- Note, I am playing a little bit of devils advocate here, adding a bit of bite to the debate.
@Frogus- My numbers were not based on any real data, just figures, giving statements on what I feel, based purely on intuition, what can be done with a given some of money.
But there are billions of dollars of aid flowing into the impovershed countries you mention, and frankly, I don't get the sense much of it is going to people who need it most.
Social security systems exist in the G-8 states, and are crumbling. It's debatable if any equivalents exist Uganda, Rwanda and the like.
We have poor at home, brought about by the ludicrously low minimum wage, high land taxes, and devastating interest on loans. While we see the difference in wealth in countries, it exists in the first world citizenry. We are rapidly seeing a system in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
I have no solution for that. Just saying it exists everywhere.
The waves came crashing in like blindness.
So I just stood and listened.
So I just stood and listened.