- Maximilian Thomas
- Toronto
- Canada
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Does world aid really help?
It seems with so many organizations operating outside of their home country to aid countries with a lesser amount of wealth than them we should think about if it is really the right thing to be doing.
Yes, this does sound barbaric and selfish, but in the end countries need to be providing for their own backs first if they plan to survive.
Consider this:
(the following is a section of an assignment I wrote for a high school paper)
There will always be the strong and the weak...always. As time passes this attribute will which of nation to nation. Look at anyone's history, long term that is, and you will see this. What this means is there is a cycle.
This next paragraph is simply a hypothesis of mine, but I believe it has a lot of validity. If we look at the thoughts of Adam Smith we see that any manipulation to a cycle (in his case it is the business cycle) causes a much larger `Recession. ` I believe that the same can be said for the cycle mention above.
To conclude: We will always have a natural balance in which there are those who are strong, and in turn in power, and those who are weak, and in turn controlled by the strong. If this balance is ever manipulated, i.e. strong countries caring for the weak, then the results of the normal recession will be amplified.
Debra Smith 200+
Maximilian Thomas
These terms are meant in terms of power. Countries will a lot of power are Strong. Countries with little power are weak. Now, one of the best ways to determine a country's amount of power is through their wealth in resources.
I hope this clears up the confusion for everyone.
Zdenek Smith 100+
While aid from developing nations is large it is also very small when compared to their total budget. Therefore developing countries can financially benefit from cutting their military expenses (esp. US), distributing wealth fairly and curbing corruption etc. Cutting aid will not only have little impact but it will increase expenses of developed nations. I explain below why.
In addition even larger portion of help is coming from individuals that donate to charities and non-profit organizations, companies and also wealthy business men like Bill Gates. These are all voluntary contributions to developing countries.
"There will always be the strong and the weak...always. "
I don't think anyone can predict future but given trends in the world it is very likely there will be no "strong" and "weak" as developing nations are catching up with developed one. I also wonder what "strong" means? Is is strength in military , economy, social system? Does it really matter?
"We will always have a natural balance in which there are those who are strong, and in turn in power, and those who are weak, and in turn controlled by the strong."
I disagree. We see a trend toward global economy and global community (European Union, global Trade, global Internet etc). Everyone should be equal and one should not control others. That will hopefully become history and individuals as well as nations will be equal members of the mankind.
I believe we need to help others because
- it is the right thing to do esp. considering how many children and women suffer
- us helping others will lead to a better world where developing nations can become part of solution and not problem when dealing with world issues
- in general developed nations cause 'brain drain', resource drain and large scale pollution/over consumption of world resources
Maximilian Thomas
I would like to start off by making a comment on your first three paragraphs. The three suggestions you made "cutting military expenses, distributing the wealth fairly and curbing corruption" seem morraly just to some, but are wholly unrealistic.
Lets start with the military. If a nation ever wants to survive they need a strong military defense. Look at any time in history and look at those who are in power and those who are not and you will see this pattern.
Now on to the distribution of wealth. I would like to hear how you think the distribution of wealth is done fairly. Whose to say that it is not fair for those who have worked to obtain the wealth to own the wealth. I certainly agree with that.
Lastly, curbing corruption. Corruption is a tough thing because even in the most "advanced" societies it will occur. I do agree with you on this point, developing countries could benefit from developed countries manipulating them.
I would also like to make a comment to your point that the Strong and the Weak structure will disappear. We need to remember that the countries that are developed today were not always developed and will not stay that way. The same goes for the developing countries. This is all part of the cycle.
"Everyone should be equal and one should not control others." This is a moral standpoint and morals dont come into play in this respect. Nature really does not care how you feel, it will continue on no matter what. I hate to be blunt but the world will never, or at least in our lifetime, see all members of mankind as equal.
Again with your last comments, these are simply how you feel. You can try and alter what nature has prescribes, but the consequences with be much greater than the situation you are trying to solve.
Zdenek Smith 100+
My comment on wealth is based on observation that wealthy people are paying less taxes than ever before. They contribution to the society does not seem fair. I will not go into details as this is rather large topic.
Sorry but I don't see this "cycle" happening in the future where global trade, employment opportunities and global exchange of information will lead to more quality overall.
Maybe nature does not care how I feel but we are given intellect and we can make this world better don't you think? Instead of let stronger kill others like in Nature we managed to have pretty civil society (at least in developed nations) and even agree on UN Human Rights and Freedoms framework.
Great discussion. thanks
Maximilian Thomas
When I discuss this with people I find they often misunderstand where I am coming from. If it was possible to have a world where everyone was happy and never suffered, I would love that (who wouldn't?). But I look to our history and nature and feel that trying to create this world will only create who problems than there were in the first place. The last thing we would want is to create a much more complicated problem than what we started with.
Zdenek Smith 100+
While I can't predict future I am positive about the future. Through statistics and responsible media like TED I can see many improvements in peoples lives and freedom. Except for developing world, the developed world has no wars for decades and people's standards of living keeps improving?
The one maor problem I see is degradation of environment. However I hope that technology can help us there as well by improving efficiency or even reverting damage we did so far.
I hope you can share with me this optimistic view of our world =)
cheers
Robert Winner 50+
As a world traveler I can tell you that almost all of these "aids" do not reach the people.
Like them or not the church that does this for their fellow man is the Mormans.
All the best. Bob.
Edward Webber
I think it's important to note aid in the form of a fat check is rarely meant to help the populace. It is well known cash makes the worst gift. Even close to home, Salvation Army (a very large 'charitable church' here in the US) burns up an estimated 90% of all income as 'administrative expenses'. And this is a supposedly charitable organization within this border. The money is actually spent as a sort of 'trickle down' bribe. A country which accepts aid cannot flat out ignore the host country, as they become dependent on that money. By making the regular bribe payments the host country gains negotiating rights and a priority status when it comes to extracting or buying natural resources from that country.
If you track every country which receives aid, you will see each country is of strategic importance to the host country (think Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan with oil) or is in a spot which is of importance for a military launching base (think Egypt) or has technology they use (think Israel).
It is far easier to spot the countries which are truly getting aid, as that aid comes in the form of food or construction. With construction, it is rarely a gift, it is a loan (think Iraq rebuilding) in which the payback is future earnings or resource rights.
I'd love to think ideally and believe these gifts are for the people, and they technically are, but the people they are for are the ones leading the country, not living in poverty within it. So, your theory is exactly what is playing out, the strong are exploiting the weak, and the weak will live under the boots of the strong for the decent future.
I do take issue with your usage of 'strong' and 'weak', as I haven't seen too many people in power I would consider leaders. They pander to what gives them power, not what is best for their nation. They are dishonest and selfish, something I hardly consider signs of strength. Maybe 'ruthless' and 'ethical' would be better suited today.
Josh S
Examples of countries that offer relatively little could be Peru, Bosnia, Kenya, Bangladesh. I'm sure people can come up with reasons why these countries are important in an attempt to prove me wrong. But come on now, when's the last time you heard of one of these countries on the news or doing anything very important. This just shows that the US does not just send aid to countries that offer us a lot back, though that may be a big motivator.
Josh S
Essentially what we showed was that our economic aid, specifically from the US that is, does not do all that much to improve Pakistan. While some does in fact reach Pakistani civilians, most ends up in the pockets of governmental organizations and wealthy persons. There are, though, examples of our economic aid helping Pakistan but even more examples of it not. The final 'cherry on top' of my argument regarding humanitarian aid showed that we are in fact 'propping up' their economy unnaturally. It is to the point that if we removed our aid, their economy would almost certainly collapse. Because of this, we must continue sending aid just to keep their economy stable. This is not true aid, our aid shouldn't be the difference between fail and prosper in a country. Their economy should be stable without us and the only way to do this would be to cut aid for at least a few years so their economy could rebuild.
I know this one example is just of Pakistan, but it is very similar to many of the other countries we aid. I think the bottom line is that if we look at the modern world powers, like the US and Russia and China and the UK etc. we see that they grew their countries naturally, by themselves and without aid. Each of these companies came close to collapse and some had complete economic collapses. People suffered but in the end the country turned out stronger. We should hope for this to happen in other countries, not go in and try to do it for them.
Maximilian Thomas
Zdenek Smith 100+
The first resource that many developing countries loose is highly educated people (so called brain drain). How can developing countries cope with its problems when many of its highly educated people that could help solve the problem leave the country? It is true that many immigrants send some money back but is that enough?
Second resource that developing country usually looses are natural resources. Many corporations from developed countries are using poor laws and government instability to make huge profits when at the same time local population and government does not gets fair share from the profits.
I also wonder how developing nations should cope with pollution and degradation of the environment caused by huge consumption (per capita) of people in US and other developed nations.
I think we all live in a connected world and we have moral obligation as well as duty to help developing nations?
Josh S
1. This brain drain does indeed occur in 3rd world countries, with an opportunity to thrive in industrialized nations, it only makes sense for the wealthier and more educated to immigrate to them. Many of the problems they face can either be fixed (a. by observing successful plans in other countries and applying them to their own) or (b. the countries don't need geniuses to solve most of their problems. Yes, in order to compete with other industrialized nations they would need very gifted people but for the most part these countries are simply trying to survive and become an industrialized country, not compete with others.) Secondly, i dont think the problem is not having the knowledge of how to solve the problem, but the man power and authority to do so, which is what many of these countries lack.
2. This point is slightly vague, when you refer to the government and populace not getting its fair share of the profits, you make it seem like the corporations control the area and the government simply has to allow it. Its the other ways around, if they dont want to, they dont have to allow corporations in. It is up to the government to determine things like minimum wage and labor laws, which must then be followed by the corporations. The corporations do not control the government, the government controls the corporations within its own borders.
3. I don't understand how our own pollution negatively affects other developing countries.
4. This is where i guess we defer based on morals, i don't beleive we have a moral obligation to help developing nations, i believe that allowing a country to succeed on its own is a better plan then aiding them in the long run.
Great points Zdenek
Zdenek Smith 100+
1. In terms of brain drain, developing country can make use of anyone to help solve problems. On all levels of the society if capable people are leaving then less capable people will fill their spots which further delays and complicates transition of developing country to developed. I am talking about basic services, politics and other areas of society.
Secondly having less educated people leads to more corruption and oppression by the government because the society lacks leaders to force political and social changes.
Finally businessman and entrepreneurs leaving the developing nations are taking away not only money but also jobs and contributions that they would make to the local economy.
2. Since the developing country is "developing" in both economical and social sense the society usually does not have the breath and depth of laws governing corporations as developed nations do. They also usually have higher corruption rates which does not help either.
What I would expect is the developed nations to closely monitor their corporations operating abroad and ensure they exhibit behavior that is expected of them at home. That usually does not happen and it is left up to these corporations to do so because of good will.
3. Because we consume so much per head we pollute the environment proportionally more. Even if those factories are in China we are the consumers of their products. We also have large number of vehicles and produce more waste.
4. If you do not subscribe to the same morals as I do, consider that by helping them we also indirectly helping ourselves because risk of war or other catastrophe is lower if the nation is developed.
Great discussion. Looking forward your answers J S.
Cheers
Noah Crossfield
Also, while I see your point about being able to provide from themselves, it can come across rather uncaring. The residents of weak countries are still people, and letting them suffer is still bad. I don't think that was your intent, but would definitely be the outcome of not aiding. Part of it is not the individual's fault, and I do not think their condition is based simply on lack of hard-work. I have actually met an eighteen-year-old who was working about 12 hours a day but only getting paid about fifty cents. He is not a lazy person. I think your thinking seems very logical, but I don't think it accurately represents the state of the world today.
Maximilian Thomas
On your first point I we need to go back and think about one point. If the, for argument sakes say `strong`and `weak`nations, strong nation is helping a weak nation, where is the advancement of the country really coming from? Lets take the example you have, education. Say the Country A (strong country) helps out Country B (weak country) establish an education system. Even if Country B is consulting with Country A, it is still Country As money, resources, system, etc. So essentially what has occurred is Country B has become weaker, because they are now relying on Country As systems and help, and in turn Country B has become weaker (even though they now have a education system, it is not truly there's). Also in the event of any disaster Country Bs system will fall much faster than the other country`s around them because it is not their system.
In terms of your second point, I would like to say agree with you that these people are not lazy. The reason a country is on hard times is numerous and it is very hard to blame the individual for that. With that said, I find this mindset interesting, that the strong should help the weak, because they are the strong. I would disagree with that point completely and say that the strong should only help the weak if it benefits the strong. In other words, the strong should not just help the weak because, well their people too.
Thanks again for the comment!
Noah Crossfield
I think that the question "where is the advancement coming from?" is not the most fitting question. Certainly the resources given would have come from Country A, but that does not make them any less useful to Country B. I wouldn't say say that Country B is weakened though. I believe that "is Country B going to be able to increase its place in the world from this foreign aid?" is a much more fitting question. Id like to explore this example a little more. Say Country A is the UK and country B could be a small island country that is really poor. If the UK set up an education system in country B, it would probably be better than Country B's system. It might not be specifically tailored to country B, but it is still very similar to the UK's system. Since the math and science are universal, the imported system would certainly be better than the almost non-existent system country B had. I don't understand how country B could be weaker. I could see country B using this system to educate its people and then those people advancing other parts of country B's infrastructure.
I believe that humans should try to help those less fortunate than them. I also believe that "aiding the weak" does help a strong country. I believe that is best seen through trade and diplomatic relations. Look at Greece; the entire world was watching to see if Greece would have economic collapse. Why? they bought and sold stuff to Greece. If someone who buys your product can't buy it, you are affected. Raw materials are also involved. Oil in particular. Diplomatic relations are affected. Why has Pakistan not made more fuss over US drone strikes? Because the US has been giving a lot of foreign aid. It is a very complex issue, but i still believe that humanitarian aid is overall a good thing.
Mark Kurtz 20+
Agreed, people need to help themselves as much as possible. I am not sure the cycle you mention is absolutely established. We'd be wise to take the long view and work as hard as we are able to serve one another for world progress---finding ways to benefit all people.
Are we all here able to take a brief test?
1) Do I feel important?
2) If I can feel important, then is it possible others either do or want to feel important (satisfied)?
3) What value is there in being satisfied my life is purposeful, important, valued, and useful? Or is this a waste?
4) Is there value in helping others?
Its a short test, but is appropriate for any person on earth----even very wealthy and smart people.
Balance is a mystery! Not all of us can define it or manifest it as we daily toil and think. Who of us can say there never will be a balanced civil, social, economic condition, and all other factors we humans face?
And consider: individuals flash upon earth and are gone! What is the time span of human life compared to eternity? In the brief time we have here we get a chance to learn and earn and share while at the same time assess worthiness of life. Who can say there never will be a great "flash" upon earth who will lead us all to higher value levels and a better world for everyone?
It seems we cannot exclusively depend on logic in facing all life challenges and for efforts to understand all things!
Keep asking questions and certainly do keep thinking!
How long since high school?
Peace,
MK
Maximilian Thomas
I find your first point interesting, and would like to retaliate with a question: What if the best way to `benefit all people` is to work as hard as you can in your own country to make it the best it can be?
I agree with your point that not all things are certain, but I disagree that it be applied to this theory. If we start in nature with natural selection we can find this pattern, the strong always prevail, leaving the weak to die and eventually become extinct. If we look throughout human history itself we can see that there is always the strong nations and the weak nations. We can even look at several different types of societies, they all have the strong and the weak.
Your test is thoughtful, but Im not really sure how it relates to helping people. Feeling important may be on top of the list for some people, but at the end of the day its about being to provide for yourself so that you can survive. Your feelings become irrelevant.
I agree that we humans have seen such a small part of the Earth, and the Universe for that matter, history. But as my earlier point stated we have the luxury of seeing this balance in nature. We must not forget that we are all a part of nature.
Your last statement I agree with whole heartedly. We must look beyond logic when solving problems to find a solution. But my point, the strong and the weak, is more of a law (if you can find a solid argument against this please do tell me).
I have to thank you once again for your thoughtful comment!
Barry Palmer 50+
This does not require a strong argument, just a point of logic. You have taken an observation and given it the status of law without any real evidence. The fact that something has always been a certain way does not mean that it will always be that way. WHY have we always seen strong and weak countries? When conditions change such that there is no longer a need for nation states, they will no longer exist. A few centuries from now, historians might be writing that the internet brought people together from around the globe, and these people developed understanding and tolerance, and it was the beginning of the end of the modern nation state.
When I was a child, there had always been too little food for people. The green revolution changed that. Now we can grow enough food for everyone, but politics gets in the way and people still go hungry. Maybe the internet will change that, and everyone will have enough to eat.
People used to say that there will always be hunger because there will never be enough food to eat. We now know that they were clearly wrong. You could be wrong too.