aid? (controversy)

Stop aid. It ends up going into the pockets of dictators and keeping them in power. The British government only has a responsbilty to the British people. The best solution is free trade not giving some money because some annoying pop stars who are on an ego trip say so.

Reply 3

Revenged

15

yeah, but you know that free trade isn't going to happen... governments do not want their own economies to suffer!

Reply 4

The Colonel

13

Stop aid as the money is only going to corrupt leaders. IF a Blair really wants to give aid then he should go to Africa and hand over medicine and food or whatever else is needed in person to the people

Reply 5

Revenged

15

i thought aid covers food hand-outs, medicines and shelters and not just money that is given out to countries

Reply 6

goneaway56

6

Revenged

yeah, but you know that free trade isn't going to happen... governments do not want their own economies to suffer!

The WTO and IMF are doing an awful lot to open up trade atm; it will take time but mostly tariff free trade is a realistic prospect on the whole. Governments are also beginning to realise that free trade is ultimately a good way forward.

The argument about aid not being useful is mainly based on historical evidence; it can be a useful way of providing some basic infrastructure to struggling countries. If it could be directed effectively (e.g. through NGOs) rather than towards corrupted Governments it could yet prove to be a superb way of triggering economic development. You only have to look at the postwar success of projects such as the Marshall Plan to see that aid can prove to be a valuable asset in allievating economic problems.

Admittedly, there certainly is a strong argument that aid corrupts in itself (through encouraging embezzlement, which replicates throughout the whole economy), and it weakens incentives for production within an economy (particularly if you suddenly release a massive cash flow into a country, where you can get problems such as rural depopulation when people come to the city to seek their fortune). If it was directed effectively and with proper, planned management, it could prove invaluable in providing the basic infrastructure and human skills to strengthen a national economy towards a state where it can actually play a role in the global economy and international trade.

Reply 7

Revenged

yeah, but you know that free trade isn't going to happen... governments do not want their own economies to suffer!

ALL benefit from free trade, for example if CAP was abolsihed we would have cheaper goods, pay less taxes, spend more on other areas and other industries i.e luxary items would not suffer.

Reply 8

goneaway56

6

objectivism

ALL benefit from free trade, for example if CAP was abolsihed we would have cheaper goods, pay less taxes, spend more on other areas and other industries i.e luxary items would not suffer.

well, not quite! Certainly, in the short term a lot of damage would occur to an economy if subsidies were reduced - namely unemployment and problems within local areas dependent on an particular industry (to use your example, rural farming areas) - it takes a long time for structural re-adjustment to reduce the impact of such damage.

Reply 9

Lottelo

well, not quite! Certainly, in the short term a lot of damage would occur to an economy if subsidies were reduced - namely unemployment and problems within local areas dependent on an particular industry (to use your example, rural farming areas) - it takes a long time for structural re-adjustment to reduce the impact of such damage.

New industries emerge, just look at what is happening in the farming industry at the moment, farmers are diversifying, for example, opening their farms to the public and B and B's etc. Thus if prepared for free trade there is no damage and still even they are benefiting in a way - paying less taxes, cheaper goods etc.

Reply 10

goneaway56

6

objectivism

New industries emerge, just look at what is happening in the farming industry at the moment, farmers are diversifying, for example, opening their farms to the public and B and B's etc. Thus if prepared for free trade there is no damage and still even they are benefiting in a way - paying less taxes, cheaper goods etc.

This still takes time; an extremely long time for this economic readjustment to occur. If the CAP was to be abolished, large numbers of farmers would go bankrupt - no question. There would be widespread rural unemployment - it is inconceivable that thousands of farmers could suddenly diversify to take advantage of this new market emerging in other sectors. There is still an enormous impact in the short term. I certainly wouldn't go as far to say that it benefits ALL - there are notable groups that it clearly won't.

If you look at similar cases, such as North East shipbuilding it is clear that an opening up of markets can leave devasting impacts on entire regions. The north east still hasn't recovered from the de-industrialisation and economic restructuring necessary after shipbuilding and similar industries became uneconomical with the opening up of markets.

Reply 11

objectivism

The British government only has a responsbilty to the British people. .

Legally yes, morally no.

Reply 12

objectivism

ALL benefit from free trade, for example if CAP was abolsihed we would have cheaper goods, pay less taxes, spend more on other areas and other industries i.e luxary items would not suffer.

Yes, CAP is disadvantaging everyone including the third world. It must be scrapped, along with our rebate.

Reply 13

Lottelo

This still takes time; an extremely long time for this economic readjustment to occur. If the CAP was to be abolished, large numbers of farmers would go bankrupt - no question. There would be widespread rural unemployment - it is inconceivable that thousands of farmers could suddenly diversify to take advantage of this new market emerging in other sectors. There is still an enormous impact in the short term. I certainly wouldn't go as far to say that it benefits ALL - there are notable groups that it clearly won't.

If you look at similar cases, such as North East shipbuilding it is clear that an opening up of markets can leave devasting impacts on entire regions. The north east still hasn't recovered from the de-industrialisation and economic restructuring necessary after shipbuilding and similar industries became uneconomical with the opening up of markets.

They still beneift from lower taxes, thus all do beneift, though not all may be net beneficiares. Thus my comment that all benefit is correct. Also most farmers have already diversified in some way

Reply 14

Revenged

15

isn't there any way of ensuring that aid is used correctly and if so, how?

Reply 15

dark_phage_poll

or anyone want to scream at me for saying this?

It depends on your reasons!
If you think that we shouldn't give aid because it gets wasted, or it ends up disadvantaging the receiving countries then I agree those are valid arguments, even though I disagree with them.

However if your reason is simply that the third world isn't our problem, and you don't care that 30,000 children die each day, then I may well scream!

Reply 16

ArthurOliver

12

thebucketwoman

However if your reason is simply that the third world isn't our problem, and you don't care that 30,000 children die each day, then I may well scream!

The third world isn't our problem. Aid (among other egalitarian follies) ensures that for the next generation there'll be even more children dying. If we're involved or exploited at all, we should act only to bring down the bloated population.

Reply 17

ArthurOliver

The third world isn't our problem. Aid (among other egalitarian follies) ensures that for the next generation there'll be even more children dying. If we're involved or exploited at all, we should act only to bring down the bloated population.

Do you suggest culling them?

Reply 18

ArthurOliver

12

thebucketwoman

Do you suggest culling them?

No, pay them not to have children, if we give them anything at all.

The only reason offered for helping them is 'pity the poor souls, they are unable to cope on their own'. If they halved their population they'd stand a far better chance of managing their own affairs, and achieving some self respect and national confidence.

Reply 19