This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
To be honest I think every dime should be spent here. I think we could really use the $50bn on our own infrastructure and get much better return here in US. Temporary jobs for the unemployed and improved bridges, parks, roadways, etc.
Do you have any proof that any of these has actually occurred? Or a decent argument for why they would is also acceptable, but what I am really looking for is what is our return? I mean, if we can say we spend $50bn to avoid one war per year, that would be great return, but I would have to see some sort of causal relationship here.
Not that insignificant actually.
Nobody here is going to be able to give you ROI that isn't based on a generic justification. It would require someone that has a substantial understanding of the alternative scenarios and the estimated cost of those scenarios to even attempt to model it.
This sounds eerily similar to Otis's statement that no donations should go to animals until all human ailments and sufferings are cured. Forgive me if its not an exact quote.
I disagree how much money did/have we thrown at Haiti and what is there to show for it. Many of these countries we "donate" to have corrupt governments and the money never reaches the people it is intended for.
Read the link I posted, which is mostly about malaria in Africa. That foreign aid has saved millions of lives in just the past few years.I agree that not every foreign aid project is efficient or effective. But we can do great things and we should.
POTD right here
Playing devils advocate, who is feeding those extra millions in Africa and how many of them will be on side or the other of the multiple wars that are currently going on there?
Well, I'd say you are looking at things very short-term and not long term.There aren't necessarily millions of extra people in Africa, and over time people account for the mortality rate where they live. When your kids have a high likelihood of dying before age 5, you are more likely to have more kids to compensate, especially if you need children to help the family financially. And you're less likely to invest time and money in things like education for the kids, because your efforts will have been unproductive if the kid dies young. Giving families greater certainty about lifespans allows them to engage in planning that ultimately leads to more education and development. And my guess is that educated people are far less likely to engage in wars of the type we see in Africa.
I don't want to argue your conclusion, but I am not sure what to make of this statement.
So the alternative in your mind would have been to allow a fairly easily treatable disease like malaria to completely destroy the continent, and allow the wars already there to continue and possibly grow to kill those remaining?
I don't see where that article links the population growth in Africa to foreign aid.
I didn't claim that it did.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Oh, beer 30 was assuming that millions of fewer deaths meant millions more people. That's only true if you assume that the number of births is unchanged. I was saying, at least in the long term, that's probably a flawed assumption.
In this case, average lifespans in Africa are getting longer (partly due to foreign aid, but also due to private charitable giving and natural economic development) and birth rates are increasing.
No, I didn't post an alternative, you put words in my mouth. I was simply asking a question to which I didn't have an answer or a position.matttyl said:
Maybe I'm being simple minded here but if we save the lives of millions of people wouldn't there be more millions of people as opposed to if those folks had died? I get what you are saying, they make a lot of babies because they lose a lot of babies. My point is the infrastructure that sustains the current population is dependent on aid. That isn't a sustainable business model. The populations of Africa need to be self-sustaining in order for the change you propose to begin. Greater certainty, education, non-corrupt governments, basic human rights...none of this occurs if the populations essentially become welfare states of the international community. We've been doing it for quite a while and it doesn't appear to me (arguably a laymen with little understanding of the area other than what I read in the press) that things have changed discernibly in my 50 years of life.
Oooooo. Strictly logical thinking. I like it.
That's one way to get rid of them.matttyl said:
"Foreign aid is important. If it's done right, it spreads America's influence around the world in a positive way."
Yes, there are serious public health issues here, but we can get a lot more accomplished abroad for the same amount of money. People die in the developing world all the time from diseases that we have vaccines for, and which cost a few dollars. Pretty much nobody in the U.S. is dying that way. It costs a lot more to save a life in the United States.
