Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why are we preserving foreign aid when we're so in debt? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    If everyone just looked out for themselves we might as well have anarchy.
    Why? Did the whole world have 'anarchy' before the creation of the welfare state 70 years ago?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Namige)
    The quantity of aid is minuscule compared to the amount of debt we have. Even so, many people seem to believe we are in a debt crisis. We are not.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    In what sense are we not in a debt crisis? :lolwut:

    Have you ever read an economics textbook?
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I'm afraid I disagree with your first point, and as such the latter don't follow for me.
    Thanks for your response. That's fine - I admit I had the suspicion we would.

    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I'm also not terribly fond of the idea of my life, or that of anyone else being thought of as some sort of common property; I would never ask another man to live for me. I think that people are ends in themselves, not a means by which to improve the general welfare. It probably won't be surprising therefore that I'm not terribly enamoured with democracy in the sense we currently have it; I believe in very limited governments with enumerated powers only, with the responsibility of providing police, courts, national defense and preventing negative externalities. The idea that a majority of people can take rights from people (or as you seem to see it, give rights to other people) in a minority doesn't appeal to me; and the smallest minority of all is the individual. I suppose I'm a natural rights type, but not in the sense I think rights are god-given; rather that they arise from our existence as rational, intelligent beings with our own desires, talents, abilities and thoughts - which I believe people should be free to pursue unless they actually harm someone else. If their activities are charitable, that is a matter for them: if they wish to improve the general welfare, I wish them well - but I don't believe anyone owes a duty to the world at large to improve the human condition. So long as they do not kill, rob, assault, defraud, or otherwise infringe upon the natural rights of others, they are acting morally, in my view.
    I appreciate you sharing your view point. Though I don't see the right to property as a natural right, I do see it of other rights. One of these natural rights I believe is the right of beings not to suffer unnecessarily; the redistribution of wealth aims to ameliorate this where it occurs. Because in my view the redistribution of wealth does not infringe upon any natural rights, it seems to me an acceptable and moral course of action.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Thanks for your response. That's fine - I admit I had the suspicion we would.


    I appreciate you sharing your view point. Though I don't see the right to property as a natural right, I do see it of other rights. One of these natural rights I believe is the right of beings not to suffer unnecessarily; the redistribution of wealth aims to ameliorate this where it occurs. Because in my view the redistribution of wealth does not infringe upon any natural rights, it seems to me an acceptable and moral course of action.
    Let's just take a hypothetical example though; say there was a child with a very rare disease (affecting say 1 in 100,000,000 people, or roughly 70 people worldwide) that caused a great degree of suffering and ultimately death. The disease could be cured, but it would cost £10,000,000,000 to develop the cure, or £142,857,142.85 per person.

    1. Is it economically worth spending £10,000,000,000 to save 70 lives of average people?

    2. Is it morally 'worth' spending £10,000,000,000 to save 70 lives of average people?

    3. Is it moral to force people to give you that £10,000,000,00?

    4. Could the same ends not be met by a means that didn't involve the application of force?

    5. If the same ends could not be met by a means that didn't involve the application of force, why is it moral? If people wouldn't choose to fund something freely, what purpose is there in compelling them do to so - is there not a lack of care about the issue?

    This is of course hypothetical; but I'm interested to see to what extent you believe what you say.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    to try and make friends. were a rich kid in a playground handing out all our cookies.

    also, when our economy gets destroyed and the likes of india, south africa and brazil are thriving we hope that theyll repay the favour and give us aid. pure selfish reasons really, the government dont give a **** about the starving civilians
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Let's just take a hypothetical example though; say there was a child with a very rare disease (affecting say 1 in 100,000,000 people, or roughly 70 people worldwide) that caused a great degree of suffering and ultimately death. The disease could be cured, but it would cost £10,000,000,000 to develop the cure, or £142,857,142.85 per person.
    Alright, great scenario.

    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    1. Is it economically worth spending £10,000,000,000 to save 70 lives of average people?
    That same £10,000,000,000 could most likely be spent to save the lives of many more than just 70 people, so I would recommend we spent it elsewhere. I'd be saddened by these people's rare disease though, and would want to see an allocation of resources to help ease their suffering.

    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    2. Is it morally 'worth' spending £10,000,000,000 to save 70 lives of average people?
    I don't believe so; not if the same amount of money could be spent to greater effect at raising welfare elsewhere.

    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    3. Is it moral to force people to give you that £10,000,000,00?
    Assuming that the society required the money for the public good, then only if doing so would not infringe upon these people's rights (for example, by pushing them into an unacceptable quality of life).

    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    4. Could the same ends not be met by a means that didn't involve the application of force?
    If it could be then that should be encouraged, however if this is not viable then taxation would have to be employed in its stead.

    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    5. If the same ends could not be met by a means that didn't involve the application of force, why is it moral? If people wouldn't choose to fund something freely, what purpose is there in compelling them do to so - is there not a lack of care about the issue?
    My answer to this question is that I do not believe it is acceptable for one person to live in luxury at the expense of another's poverty. Because nature does not respect rights, we must impose measures to do so ourselves: Taxation is a means to implement what is good on a reality that is content to house evil.

    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    This is of course hypothetical; but I'm interested to see to what extent you believe what you say.
    Hopefully if I say a thing then I believe it, but please call me up on anything if you find that not to be the case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Why? Did the whole world have 'anarchy' before the creation of the welfare state 70 years ago?
    I didn't say that. I said if everyone had your exact attitude.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I have always been skeptical concerning foreign aid.

    I don't have enough faith in humanity to believe that humanitarian aid from governments is really a result of compassion or because people feel an obligation. These days it's all about 'realpolitik'. I'm pretty sure giving humanitarian aid to other countries almost always has significant benefit to the donor. Most of the time it doesn't even go to the population it ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians who probably then provide certain services...like allowing military bases in their country or allowing corporations from other countries creep in.

    Also I object to humanitarian aid to a certain degree. What will it really accomplish ? All it does is stop poor countries from developing . As cruel as it may sound during the course of development people have to die. People need to learn from their mistakes and aim to rectify them for the future. How can you expect them to if someone constantly intervenes and bails them out? Europe went through MULTIPLE wars,plaques and other horrible things to get where it is. Only by experience has Europe learned the destructive nature of dictatorships, poverty and so on. And only by experience can poor countries learn from their mistakes and develop.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    X
    Which is precisely why I think the NHS which does work well is the way to go. We spend somthing like 3-4 times less per capita on healthcare than the US with comparable quality. The US middle ground isn't working and I don't see a full private system ever working. You can't have a competitive system when you need such large fixed assets such as hospitals and when there is such huge asymmetry of information made worse with people and there family understandably not being at their most rational when sick.
    And yes I misused the term public good. However the general good health of the population is beneficial to everyone hence the needs for healthcare and a social safety net.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    ... why's that then? Do you think the government doesn't have to pay for things?
    Yes, it has to pay vulnerable people benefits because this is a civilised society which provides for those who through no fault of their own cannot contribute to it. It also has to retain workers' rights so that young people can get a foot on the ladder.

    It is in the government's interest to pay the vulnerable benefits because otherwise we would be stepping over cripples who've burned their own eyes out like in India, which is more Fallout New Vegas than forward-thinking advanced economy.

    It is in the government's interest to pay the jobless benefits because otherwise they will be rioting on the streets causing damage, crime and overthrowing the government, which costs even more money to repair as well as, again, making the country look like a total shambles.

    It is in the government's interest to retain workers' rights because otherwise when all the old people die none of the young people will have ever had a job and they will probably all be completely incompetent and/or insane.

    And this is even before you bring morality into it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    The first point is ludicrous-Look what happened to Greece!

    Your 2nd point is interesting-in some cases that might even be true!
    We are not Greece, we are the sixth or seventh largest economy in the world and people pay their taxes here. Don't be pathetic, the right-wing press has told you to fear financial collapse.

    If reducing the welfare state is so important, then why is the government going for the areas with the smallest spends first? Pensioners get all their stuff ring-fenced and not even means-tested, despite being the biggest spend. The jobless and disabled are disenfranchised and too weak, defeated and housebound to fight back. That is why they have been targeted with social security cuts.

    And why do we have enough money to go gallivanting off to Libya or Syria or to retain our Trident missiles, which we've had 30 years and only ever fired one of (to sink the Belgrano)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    We are not Greece, we are the sixth or seventh largest economy in the world and people pay their taxes here. Don't be pathetic, the right-wing press has told you to fear financial collapse.
    An 8% deficit or any other sized deficit could be carried out indefinitely but the price would be getting very used to exponentially increasing inflation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    He did - he sent planes and special forces to Libya. Next stop Syria!
    I mean at least British troops didn't die in yet another needless/wrong war

    Don't forget Iran-they might make a false WMD claim again!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mucgoo)
    An 8% deficit or any other sized deficit could be carried out indefinitely but the price would be getting very used to exponentially increasing inflation.
    Not really. That would require huge GDP growth, larger than what we usually have.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    Not really. That would require huge GDP growth, larger than what we usually have.
    I was being sarcastic if you read the next bit about inflation. E.g you create your nominal 8% GDP growth. In real term look at Zimbabwe and 1920's Germany. Scrotgrot's suggestion that you don't need to worry about deficit is obviously nonsense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I know nothing about economics, so feel free to shoot me down, but:

    The budget deficit is around 90bn and before we can pay off our debt, we need to be profiting (or else we'll have to borrow to pay it down, which is more debt). So! If we temporarily suspended foreign aid for 9 years to pay off the deficit whilst growing- due to not having to take cuts in other areas- would we then be able to afford foreign aid whilst paying off the debt at the end of that period?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phantasmagorical)
    I know nothing about economics, so feel free to shoot me down, but:

    The budget deficit is around 90bn and before we can pay off our debt, we need to be profiting (or else we'll have to borrow to pay it down, which is more debt). So! If we temporarily suspended foreign aid for 9 years to pay off the deficit whilst growing- due to not having to take cuts in other areas- would we then be able to afford foreign aid whilst paying off the debt at the end of that period?
    The 90bn figure is yearly deficit, the amount being added to the debt each year. So the 10bn foreign aid cut would narrow it to 80bn. The full total debt figure is currently about £1100bn. So yes it would help but only very slightly.

    Large numbers can make it all rather confusing. The US is currently at 14,000,000,000,000 (12 zeroes) dollars of debt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Yes, it has to pay vulnerable people benefits because this is a civilised society which provides for those who through no fault of their own cannot contribute to it. It also has to retain workers' rights so that young people can get a foot on the ladder.

    It is in the government's interest to pay the vulnerable benefits because otherwise we would be stepping over cripples who've burned their own eyes out like in India, which is more Fallout New Vegas than forward-thinking advanced economy.

    It is in the government's interest to pay the jobless benefits because otherwise they will be rioting on the streets causing damage, crime and overthrowing the government, which costs even more money to repair as well as, again, making the country look like a total shambles.

    It is in the government's interest to retain workers' rights because otherwise when all the old people die none of the young people will have ever had a job and they will probably all be completely incompetent and/or insane.

    And this is even before you bring morality into it.
    No, I mean don't you think it has to get the money for this somewhere?

    You don't seem to think that the debt is a problem at all - you do realise that if we don't look like we're able to pay our debts (which, of course, we can't pay) nobody will lend us money - and if people won't lend us money, how will we pay for these programs you want to keep? We certainly can't afford it out of taxation - taxes are already very high; so high in fact that I'm planning on leaving as soon as I can afford to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mucgoo)
    The 90bn figure is yearly deficit, the amount being added to the debt each year. So the 10bn foreign aid cut would narrow it to 80bn. The full total debt figure is currently about £1100bn. So yes it would help but only very slightly.

    Large numbers can make it all rather confusing. The US is currently at 14,000,000,000,000 (12 zeroes) dollars of debt.
    Ahah! Thanks!
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Because of something called altruism.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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