Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pepaim)
    Foreign aid of the development sort. For domestic education and welfare spending should be increased by an increase in top rate of tax. More development aid would give millions of ppl a better life.
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And higher taxes would give millions of Brits a worse life. Yay for you.
    In the short term, perhaps. However, many economists have argued that in the long term supplying development aid could prove a highly insightful act of self-interest while coincidentally improving the lives of millions of people.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edmundwillis)
    In the short term, perhaps. However, many economists have argued that in the long term supplying development aid could prove a highly insightful act of self-interest while coincidentally improving the lives of millions of people.
    Development aid harms the recipient country's economy, which means you would improve the lives of neither the foreigners nor of your own people. And higher taxes hurt the economy in the short term and the long term. Less incentive to work hard means a lower GDP and a higher unemployment rate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Development aid harms the recipient country's economy, which means you would improve the lives of neither the foreigners nor of your own people. And higher taxes hurt the economy in the short term and the long term. Less incentive to work hard means a lower GDP and a higher unemployment rate.
    That is the classical and, I concede, largely applicable theory (multinationals forming or investing in countries such as India, China, Brazil has rapidly improved their economies). It does not seem to have worked in the case of Africa, though, and economists and politicians are beginning to think that perhaps the alternative strategy is necessary there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Spend money on defence, without UK being safe was the point on spending on other areas.

    And also the overall macro economy would be stabilised, in the longer term, with a reduced threat level.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edmundwillis)
    That is the classical and, I concede, largely applicable theory (multinationals forming or investing in countries such as India, China, Brazil has rapidly improved their economies). It does not seem to have worked in the case of Africa, though, and economists and politicians are beginning to think that perhaps the alternative strategy is necessary there.
    It did not work in the case of Africa because Africa hasn't created the conditions that would allow those multinationals to open factories there. The only alternative strategy necessary is for Africa to reduce corruption and red tape, and look to its own people for solution instead of relying on foreigners.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    It did not work in the case of Africa because Africa hasn't created the conditions that would allow those multinationals to open factories there. The only alternative strategy necessary is for Africa to reduce corruption and red tape, and look to its own people for solution instead of relying on foreigners.
    I agree there are problems with corruption in Africa, but then there are problems with corruption in business and energy also. However, the situation is not impossible - indeed some Chinese companies had started to invest in the area. The problem is that they then returned to China; lured back by the country's extraordinarily high growth rates.

    It is a very difficult and interesting problem because, on the face of it, Africa would appear to be a very enticing prospect for investors with an untapped workforce willing to work for very low wages. Yet investors are turning away from Africa - perhaps that is because of the corruption of governments on the continent.

    Therefore you suggest "the alternative strategy necessary is for Africa to reduce corruption and red tape". I think that is a thoroughly necessary step too. But how do you suggest that the strategy be implemented? Do you honestly believe Africa should "look to its own people for [the] solution [to this particular problem] instead of relying on foreigners"?

    (No doubt you have realised that I am something of a socialist but I am trying to see whether it is possible to argue the case for 'socialisty ideas' in a Conservative's own language!)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edmundwillis)
    I agree there are problems with corruption in Africa, but then there are problems with corruption in business and energy also. However, the situation is not impossible - indeed some Chinese companies had started to invest in the area. The problem is that they then returned to China; lured back by the country's extraordinarily high growth rates.

    It is a very difficult and interesting problem because, on the face of it, Africa would appear to be a very enticing prospect for investors with an untapped workforce willing to work for very low wages. Yet investors are turning away from Africa - perhaps that is because of the corruption of governments on the continent.

    Therefore you suggest "the alternative strategy necessary is for Africa to reduce corruption and red tape". I think that is a thoroughly necessary step too. But how do you suggest that the strategy be implemented? Do you honestly believe Africa should "look to its own people for [the] solution [to this particular problem] instead of relying on foreigners"?

    (No doubt you have realised that I am something of a socialist but I am trying to see whether it is possible to argue the case for 'socialisty ideas' in a Conservative's own language!)
    A Socialist who wants the money spent on defence? hmmmmmm
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edmundwillis)
    ITherefore you suggest "the alternative strategy necessary is for Africa to reduce corruption and red tape". I think that is a thoroughly necessary step too. But how do you suggest that the strategy be implemented? Do you honestly believe Africa should "look to its own people for [the] solution [to this particular problem] instead of relying on foreigners"?

    (No doubt you have realised that I am something of a socialist but I am trying to see whether it is possible to argue the case for 'socialisty ideas' in a Conservative's own language!)
    It takes several years to open up a business in parts of Africa. The startup fee for a small business usually exceeds a yearly salary. There are major tariffs between African countries, which raises the cost of production in African countries (more expensive to import materials necessary for production). When there are no incentives to start businesses and make money, why would the African people choose that path? And how does throwing money at them give them an incentive to start their own businesses when the red tape remains?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    It takes several years to open up a business in parts of Africa. The startup fee for a small business usually exceeds a yearly salary. There are major tariffs between African countries, which raises the cost of production in African countries (more expensive to import materials necessary for production). When there are no incentives to start businesses and make money, why would the African people choose that path? And how does throwing money at them give them an incentive to start their own businesses when the red tape remains?
    'Red tape', as you so affectionately describe it , also is a big problem that needs to be addressed. My question is: do you think it is possible for the African people themselves to remove all the red tape and corruption that still remains in Africa?

    Personally, I believe the international consensus (to use development aid as a tool to effectively bribe states out of corruption) is the right one - in that it seems that it might work. Do you not think that perhaps Africa needs an initial push to get itself started from "foreigners" or do you adopt the Thatcherite line that 'people should be allowed to decide for themselves what happens to them'. The fault in this mantra is that it neglects that many will be in countries or economic situations where it is simply not possible to make and take those decisions.

    Cottonmouth: I don't remember asking for taxes to be spent on defence!?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    By the way, I would usually vote for education as a matter of course. However, I'm beginning to think that perhaps the reason it is doing so well is because we are on an education forum.

    It is therefore very difficult to argue that I would suggest education not out of vested interests, although that is indeed (I hope) the case.

    So I think I shall follow someone else earlier in the thread and vote for welfare to balance the numbers. :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And higher taxes would give millions of Brits a worse life. Yay for you.
    Worse off maybe in cash terms but there would be no need for private education and health care spending which could save money. Also, millions of Brits would benefit from a happier society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pepaim)
    Worse off maybe in cash terms but there would be no need for private education and health care spending which could save money. Also, millions of Brits would benefit from a happier society.
    :ditto:

    But I note you are a Labour supporter. Surely you must be dying to see Gordon Brown in his rightful office if you want to see the end of private education and health care!

    Those policies of privately-sponsored Academies and communication and integration with private and 'grammar' schools really aggravate me.

    They are really not too far from Tory policies of pupil passports and health vouchers which alienate those people that actually can't afford private services - not those that can afford to "scrape together the pennies" and go private that Micheal Howard kept talking about as 'really hard up families'. I have a lot of respect for Tony Blair for making the party electable, but if there's one thing he isn't: it's a socialist!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im member of lab party in real life and its quite hard to justify sometimes but yes GB should take over soon. But, i fear he may be just the same as TB on some issues because of fear of electoral failure.

    Blair not socialist but does place greater value on community so is slightly (very slightly) left wing in some ways.

    Iv never met Brown so cant fairly comment on what hes like as a person but he always seems really nice and his smile is great!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pepaim)
    Im member of lab party in real life and its quite hard to justify sometimes but yes GB should take over soon. But, i fear he may be just the same as TB on some issues because of fear of electoral failure.

    Blair not socialist but does place greater value on community so is slightly (very slightly) left wing in some ways.

    Iv never met Brown so cant fairly comment on what hes like as a person but he always seems really nice and his smile is great!!
    I think for Tony Blair especially his emphasis on community stems a lot from his Christianity - I think he would reject the idea of left- and right- wings as outdated to be honest, though.

    I saw Gordon Brown in a half hour interview with Jon Snow the other day and you are spot on about his persona. He really brings across a sense of passion and caring about issues such as welfare and trade justice but he has never been accused, as Blair has of "acting". He also works very hard at the Treasury and is enormously intelligent.

    This sums up why I think there should be a clear and well organised handover of power perhaps even towards the end of Blair's third term: not because I think Blair has done anything wrong in particular, but because these are two great politicians and I think it would be a great shame if they did not both have the opportunity of taking the 'Top Job'.

    My only fear is that Gordon Brown might be left, like Blair's predecessor at No. 10, John Major, with a mutilated electoral victory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I voted for crime.. as maintaining the rule of law is what the government is really there for in the first place.
    However, I would much prefer just to lower taxes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would privatise the NHS and the BBC, education etc and abolish taxation. Also withdraw from the EU.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Science,crime,welfare and numerous other areas are to a great extent effected by and dependant upon education which should be the priority for any progressive society. The great emphasis on education in Scotland of centuries gone by played a great role in ensuring Scots were far more prominent in history than they should have been given the stature of their nation and their numbers.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    I would privatise the NHS and the BBC, education etc and abolish taxation. Also withdraw from the EU.
    Very interesting ideas. Could you provide your reasoning for each?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Restructure the education system and pour the money in
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well, it isn't really a tax cut since you have been given this money by a magic leprauchan. So its just a hand-out, since you didn't get the money from the people in the first place. Unless you intend to cut spending along with it. I would like to split the money between crime, education and defence. But, since the leprauchan said I could only spend it on one thing, I'll spend it on police and prisons, since the purpose of government is to protect people's lives and property, and to uphold the rule of law.
 
 
 

1,176

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.