Printable View
A very enjoyable read. It takes the view that all leaders main aim is to remain leaders and sees if their behaviour can be derived from this rather than thinking different societies have different ideologies they are trying to implement - and why often things in dictatorships are so 'orrible and development remains so low.
Hardly uplifting... but at least it does provide an argument that both debt relief and international aid although often well intentioned are counter-productive.
~:smoking:
Saw the movie The DicTator, very uplifting I bursted out in laughter so many times. I'll give it a look, link would help. As for topic, I kinda think Morgenthau was right with his six principles of political realism. It's really cynical you will love it you cheerie you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
A good synopsis.
~:smoking:
Heh, ordered, never heard of it I at least want to own it. Everything in that video should be obvious to everyone but... well. Author amd Morgenthauseemto share a common dominator; power. The works of Machiavelli also didn't age at all
I've got it and am reading through it. Very enjoyable book for us cynics!
Im currently slogging my way through Peter Wilsons history of the 30 years war.
Bought it to pass the time at dialysis.
So far nothing too surprising in it, but a good read :yes:
Have to say, the argument in the book sounds familiar.
I remember analysis of Latin American countries that broke down in similar ways, along the line of primary, secondary and tertiary support.
That aside, it does give an interesting lens through which to look at the Trump administration.
The tax reform was key. For true believers: any tax cut is a good one; this policy certainly qualifies. Most of the money goes to the top; those in the population much like Trump...imagine that.
The lower fruit are any policies that overturn anything Obama did.
The message is clear; if you want to redistribute wealth, that's ok just so long as it goes to the right people. Further, deficits are not a problem in the service of the "correct" people.
It's a fun read, nothing that you shouldn't already understand, with examples of what you already understand
And yet... senior economists continue to think that debt relief / NGO work is a "good thing" and not merely propping up dictators by subsidising things that they no longer need to do. When earthquakes happen nothing is mentioned about why the death toll was so high and why this might be. Aid is still given on the pretext of helping the people, opposed to supporting the dictators that are already there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
So this appears to be something that is rarely talked about, is poorly understood and is even less frequently acted on.
~:smoking:
Talking about NGO's ohohoh Oxam-Novib... at least we now know how the money in Haïti was used, one big sex-party for Oxam-Novib with often underaged hookers. Ouch.
Probably not the best way to invest in the economy and encourage long term development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yeah, well, I'm not the one who keeps saying we should lower taxes and give money to charity instead... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
(not saying you necessarily do either, it's more a general point)
And that problem is as old as international aid projects.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
How much actually gets to the people as opposed to being funneled to black market profiteers, or simply consumed by the leadership.
It is an economy unto itself in some ways.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
I have little experience with this subject, but I wonder what analyses have been done to show that changes to the aid regime wouldn't have led to worse outcomes and statuses today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
That would be proving a negative, which doesn't work well with the scientific method.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Still, an argument could be made that it would be worse still if things had been done differently or no aid provided.
It seems things will improve if you have replacement of the structure, rather than providing money to it. So, giving the current crop amnesty to spend their stolen money in peace (otherwise why on earth would they ever leave? Surely better to live in relative safety with $1 billion than continue accruing money and be scared each night might be your last) and then frankly either having territory annexed by nearby states that are better functioning or an outside agency who in essence rebuilds the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Or just pretend to help by paying for the right to come in, paying for the hotels, giving the aid to the regime and then seeing a few terrified, smiling locals and thinking it must be better.
~:smoking:
You should read Dead Aid, often dismissed because Moyo works for Goldman Sachs, but that's really all I hear, they never get any further than that.
Well, in social science research I've seen 'reverse projections' modeled, projections within some past time frame under the relevant parameters. I'm sure there any any number of causal limitations this kind of analysis, but it exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Separate from the question of what aid should look like from now on, is the question of whether the existence of the aid overall was better than not rendering any aid, or which types of aid and in which regions/countries. Maybe there were higher returns to aid in the first generation, for instance.
Just give aid, food and medicine, don't try any social enginering. It's not only patronising but also destructive. We should help where it's needed, nobody sane would not help people who are in need, but short-term, no planning ahead it aren't our pets. Help out, but don't disrupt.
Still haven't finished it, good read indeed ~D
I was a little concerned when it got onto "democracy and war"; they added a little nuance that such arguments paper over.
If the democratic smaller country is fulfilling the policy objectives of the larger democratic country, all well and good; should the smaller country undertake policies that don't line up with the desires of the larger => war. It nicely describes US policy in Latin America.
"Promoting democracy" is all well and good, unless they desire something we don't like.
The US has higher competency spreading democracy from the barrel of a GI's gun. Maybe it works better domestically than abroad, or maybe it's context-specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
Currently reading this. This book does a good job when it isn't attempting to discredit fundamental approaches to international relations.
There is an incredibly long PDF (that I'm mentally incapable of reading) by the same authors for those of you who are skeptical about this book as it may come across as streamlined horseshit. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/file...2003_logic.pdf