Charity, the root of all evil?

Lately I have been pondering something. Over a dinner discussion, I more or less got accused for being cheap and lacking in morals, as I refuse to donate money to charity, even though I would have the means.

For me it is a philosophical question more than anything else, really. I am just against most types of charity.

People have been giving money to charity for hundreds, if not thousands of years. This has yet to solve any real problems. Quite the opposite, charity is a way for the middle/upper class to buy themselves off of moral responsibility. Much like the salvation of soul letters so popular by the church before Martin Luther.

"So the world is a mess, but I do not have to care about that on a political level because I gave $100 to the Red Cross."

Pretty cheap, is it not? $100 in return for not having to care about the world at large.

But what impact will these $100 have?

Imagine if all of the millions of people who do charity stopped, and instead demanded of their politicians to sort things out. It is like the old saying, evil does not happen because there are so many evil persons in the world, evil happens because the good persons do nothing.

If one believe in the christian religion, I could bet Satan was the founder of UNICEF, Red Cross and so on.

I hope I make some sort of sense here.

PS: I do give money to projects I believe in, albeit on another scale and level.

Dambisa Moyo and her dead-aid book should be on everyones reading list:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...o-1519875.html

The EU is a particularly bad offender in that:
It uses CAP to subsidise local basic industry which prevents the third world from earning a living
It justifies its immoral behaviour by giving aid money which creates a subsistence dependency
It prevents britain from offering the favourable trade deals with former colonies that encouraged enterprise in those nations

The most cynical trade there is, read 'Dead Aid' by D Moyo. It isn't really aid, it's post colonialism

I do not think that the concept of charity is bad, merely in many cases the reality. Furunculus gives examples of trade distortion disguised as charity.

Yes, using a WWF subscription to assuage one's conscience against all the bad in the world is a cop out that loads of people do, but donating to a hospice in my opinion isn't. The latter will make a significant local difference.

I also have a problem with vast amounts of my income going in the UK to such things as Social Services. It removes all link between myself and the beneficiaries. They feel no gratitude towards me as it is the State that gives them their alms, and I feel no compassion as I have been divorced from the process. Give more? What, was the last few hundred not enough this month?

Political activism is all very well and good, but most people only like things to improve abroad as long as there is no perceived cost to themselves. Else why not spend half our welfare and health budget elsewhere? It's save far more lives. People want to maintain their own delusion of being a caring citizen of the world but the vast majorities are NIMBYs. A few quid a month to a popular charity helps plaster over this disconnect.

~:smoking:

Thanks guys.. I will get to it at once.

I am however talking about the more personal aid.

What would happen if UNICEF, Red Cross etc all shut down business, all with the same message - "change things politically". Then what would the good people do with their moral dilemmas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

Thanks guys.. I will get to it at once.

I am however talking about the more personal aid.

What would happen if UNICEF, Red Cross etc all shut down business, all with the same message - "change things politically". Then what would the good people do with their moral dilemmas?

---

Skip Unicef, Red Cross is good. I adopted an African family and send them the money directly so they actually get it, hardly hurts me but it's good news for them, they can buy what they want, shoot me if I do it to feel good about myself, others hold the high ground but it's more easy to squeeze lemonade from a peace of granite if it costs them, tax included and all that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

What would happen if UNICEF, Red Cross etc all shut down business, all with the same message - "change things politically". Then what would the good people do with their moral dilemmas?

---

what would happen?

well countries like haiti might have a chance at a future:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/d...es/4od#3153261

For countries to have a shot at a future, they in the first instance need to be a country. Far too many African states are as they were from colonial times as the leaders want as big a state as possible to plunder. Aid keeps them there

There are two ways forward as I see it. One expensive for us and comparatively cheap for the state, the other cheap for us and comparatively expensive for the state.

First route would be to go in, organise elections and repartition the state if required. Then assist in oversight, anti-corruption and general advice until the state is able to function independently.

The second is to basically do nothing and wait for the whole lot to implode. After the wars, starvation and so on, new boundaries will be drawn and new states will rise.

The former would require EU and US (and others) subsidies to cease to give the locals a chance to develop doing what they should be efficient at. Not going to be popular, that.

The latter would only work if the leaders in many areas were not able to sell raw materials to buyers. Practically impossible, and the resource wars would go on as they have been.

Unsurprisingly we try the "middle road" of doing something in the worst areas, but not enough to really sort anything out in a meaningful way, as to do so would cost too much.

~:smoking:

I think there's something in what Rory said regarding local impact. What often seems to happen with international aid is that the human (local) impact is not easily felt or noticed by the charity giver/tax payer of the donor nation.

This is especially true when talking of macro-economic aid, designed to help the long term prospects of a country. There are massive risks around how such long term structural aid is delivered (ensuring it goes to the right places) but while such aid often considered wasteful, it's actually conceived to address poverty/disease etc in a permanent and sustainable way.

It's really not that complicated, stop dumping subsided goods in Africa we are disrupting their market. And send a few engineers to actually help them, (and make some price deals of course but fair ones)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's really not that complicated, stop dumping subsided goods in Africa. And send a few engineers to actually help teach them, (and make some price deals of course but fair ones)

---

QFT.

When my family arrived in africa the purpose of my fathers job was to be part of an all english/anglo school-staff intended to provide a 1940's style public school education.

Today there is only one white teacher left in the school, the head teacher (who was our neighbour) Frank Cooke, as all the rest have since been replaced by graduates of the school. The most gifted of those graduates were given contractual bursaries to pay for a western university education on the proviso that they brought their knowledge and skills back to Malawi in order to benefit the country.

Job well done!

The same can be said about local and national government; now populated by educated professionals from Kamuzu Academy.

Funniest of all, Malawi got very little aid post independence because it was run by a right-wing authoritarian as opposed to a 'democratic' peoples movement, so its success is its own. Contrasted with this success, its neighbours 'benefited' from communist inspired civil wars that ripped the continent apart, countries which received lots foreign aid along along with the ideology and spent most of it on Migs and swiss bank accounts.

Malawi, a country of 4.5 million people supported 1.5 million refugees from Mozambiques civil war for years barely a penny of aid from international aid bodies.

So, to get back on topic; stop sending aid administered by a bazillion quangoes and simply DESTROY the common agricultural policy as well as removing tariffs on cheap manufactured goods.

and open up the european market and make it truly free OR respect the international treaties on fishing and multinational corporations and stop the one way exploitation of african rescourses without giving similar chances in return.

This leads me to wonder if Louis (or anyone here) has ever defended the CAP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

This leads me to wonder if Louis (or anyone here) has ever defended the CPA?

---

CAP? If so, then Louis is a vocal proponent for others to give the French farmers money for whatever they decide to do. I don't think anyone has raised an argument for it that stands up to scrutiny though.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

CAP? If so, then Louis is a vocal proponent for others to give the French farmers money for whatever they decide to do. I don't think anyone has raised an argument for it that stands up to scrutiny though.

---

er, yes, CAP. I even googled the damn thing to make sure.

Doha also flopped last time, IIRC becasue of arguments between the US and India?

And on something else noted here, most developing countries are awash not with western made goods but Chinese ones... I was in Nigeria over the summer and local industries (due to the effect of oil rents on the economy) cannot compete with the prices of chinese made goods. The mind boggles that it can be cheaper to make something and ship it from China to Nigeria than to make it in Nigeria... Very sad because before they discovered oil in the south, Nigeria had developing agricultural and manufacturing industries, no more. Well, there's also the fact that no factory can run with mains power that only works for roughly 50% of the day.

Charity is bad. Taxation is the way.

Every person has a value "just for the sake of being human", people are entitled to life, they should not be forced to live on the goodwill of those with money.

As for foreign aid, well, whether you see it as good or bad depends on whether you see the death of millions of Africans as good or bad. Because that's the death toll you'll get should emergency aid be scrapped.

State-to-state aid is another issue again, the reasoning behind giving millions to some de facto president has nothing to do with the citizens of the country, instead its goal is to enable the state to build a government with functioning institutions.

Continuing emergency aid ensures that there will be a large number of people who just survived the last disaster to have more children to overtax the land to continue almost dying. In essence, prolonging the problem without providing a solution.

Where has this utopia of state to state aid worked? It's managed to get a lot of presidents extra money, but is there a link between aid and a successful institution? All evidence so far in the thread appears to be contrary to this.

Taxes already account for nearly £2000 of my salary. That's plenty for providing their life. Or am I supposed to also provide for them to have as many children as they want?

~:smoking:

“simply DESTROY the common agricultural policy as well as removing tariffs on cheap manufactured goods.”
Good idea.
Let’s buy their food to feed our cattle and let them die of starvation. Their Rich will become richer and well, market economy will do the rest, like in Ireland during the Potatoes Crisis. The Irish were dieing but Ireland (the Rich) was exporting food…
Let’s exploited their masses to provide the ones who will be able to live/work in Western Countries to have even cheaper products…

“stop the one way exploitation of african rescourses without giving similar chances in return.” Do you want to export minerals to Africa? What similar Chances?

“It's really not that complicated, stop dumping subsided goods in Africa we are disrupting their market. And send a few engineers to actually help them, (and make some price deals of course but fair ones)”
It is not that complicated, it just a complete cliché.
What subsidised goods do we dump in Africa? Except our industrial waste?

And we did sent few engineers in the past and they just speed up the desertification in introducing ill-conceived cultures and methods of culture.
See, lake Chad, or the destruction of the thin layer of soil and putting the red laterit at the top thank to blind import of European Techniques…
Or we can speak of the Assouan Dam on the Nile, or the draining of the Nile in Sudan, or the destruction of the Rain Forest and de-forestation, mining and others…

Now, what kind of Charities do we speak of?
Post war, development?
What would happen if UNICEF, Red Cross etc all shut down business, all with the same message - "change things politically". Then what would the good people do with their moral dilemmas?
We stop charities: Well, a lot of vulnerable populations will die, as simple as that.
We have to change politically, but not the taking the clothes from Peter to give to Paul.
I do understand the feeling to let the French Peasants to die and to allow the African Lands Owner to became richer, but it is useless, except of course if French Peasants are less important the Rich African Land Owners (and all of them are not African).
But just cancel all Aids is not THE magic solution.

“Imagine if all of the millions of people who do charity stopped, and instead demanded of their politicians to sort things out.”
I imagine. No, mistake, I saw it.
Did you see “Black Hawk Down” The introduction, when the War Lord takes the food? How much probabilities for the local population demands to be heard? One or two machine guns? Guess…
I can tell you, because I work around 10 years in Charities… The so-called Elite doesn’t give a monkey of their people…
So, you have the choice. You help who and when you can for others human beings to have a least a little chance to live or just do nothing but accept their death.

“If one believe in the christian religion, I could bet Satan was the founder of UNICEF, Red Cross and so on.”
Well, I was sub-contracted by UNICEF to deliver Food and Medicament to Sarajevo and other places in Bosnia. If this is Satan’s job, I prefer Lucifer (the Light Holder) to a God who will let people die.
Not that the UN organisations are all perfect and good, but to deny their work because some flaw in to drop the baby with the water of the bath…

“This has yet to solve any real problems.” Stopping people to die is to solve real problem. Providing a well, refurbishing a hospital, sheltering population, protecting people, vaccinating, de-mining lands and roads are solving problem.

“It isn't really aid, it's post colonialism” And what is “Free”-market? Colonialism not even post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Taxes already account for nearly £2000 of my salary. ~smoking:

---

Whoa, that works out to a whopping £ 165 a month! :shocked2: How do you manage?






:pleased:

Erm, no, that's per month...

So make that c. £22,000 A YEAR.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Erm, no, that's per month...

So make that c. £22,000 A YEAR.

~:smoking:

---

Hrmph...so much money and still you squeak about a few tenners of it paying for Britain's annual CAP tribute to more powerful nations?

Rory:

You're not arguing against me, honestly. My first comment(taxation) was about domestic issues, ie. stuff like public healthcare and money from the state when you're laid off and such. My second comment wasn't about providing a solution, that emergency aid is not a solution is kinda implied. But if you say that you are against it, then fine, you are saying you are okay with millions of people dying. Like it or not, europeans will neverm eveer accept such a thing, so there is absolutely no chance of cancelling emergency aid. Also, what of personal responsibility? Why should M'fofo die because of events she has zero control over, and will never be able to influence? Why should she have to die as a way to teach her agricultural minister a lesson? My third point made did not comment on the effect nor for or against it, just a clarification of its stated aim.

Europeans are perfectly happy with Africans dying. They only ask that they don't hear about it and no one challenges the fact they'd rather have a new TV than save a life. Any disposable income any Europeans spend on fripperies rather than sending aid to Africa shows that they value these things over others lives.

Sadly, the fact is that for change things usually have to force the change. And yes, generally that involves people dying. Several have died whilst I type this response. It is a very popular activity in Africa.

I don't really see what personal responsibility has to do with anything. Few people have control over their destiny. I certainly don't.

~:smoking:

“Few people have control over their destiny. I certainly don't.” I certainly in favour of the Social Determinism theory; I am not one of those who think if there is a will there is way.
However, I don’t blame the Universe for what I failed (by the way nobody thanks it for their success gained only to a hard work and exceptional capacity/ies).
I did some choices and I lived with them.

To give the opportunity to some to at least escape from their condition where they are, thanks to the Social Background they born in, is one of few choices we’ve got in living in our nice countries.
These countries we did nothing to deserve, just the pure luck to be born there, countries build by our ancestors and parents who made some choices and had some successes…

Charities save lives. As simple. As to give blood. Stop give blood that will teach people not to have accident on the road by too much drinking or over speeding… Aaa, the others victims, sorry can’t do omelettes without braking eggs, collateral damages, price to pay for education etc…

Work for you?

Charity is an inefficient process because in the vast majority of these 'charities', 90% is spent on administration. So give £10 to give £1 in aid.

Giving blood. Really? More like giving out heroin / alcohol as otherwise the poor addicts will have a hard time of it.

Blood is given to those that can't change of their own volition.

Aid in its current form prevents or at least reduces the need for reform - why bother leading a balanced, efficient, transparent economy when you can get the money for free from abroad?

I'm not completely fatalistic. I would liken it to being at the wheel of the ship on the sea. You can try to steer where you want to go, and if you're lucky you'll get a calm sea or even a favourable wind. Sometimes there's a great big storm and you can try to avert disaster but odds are it'll get you whatever you do.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Charity is an inefficient process because in the vast majority of these 'charities', 90% is spent on administration. So give £10 to give £1 in aid.

---

That depends heavily on which charity you're talking about.

For organizations like Doctors without borders and the Red Cross, little is lost to administration.

@rory: how can Ms. Mfofo "change on her own volition" when she is mired in poverty and her country suffers a critical shortage of food?

How could the Tsunami victims in Thailand expect a Tsunami? Should we just tell that they were silly to build their life near the ocean?

Many charities do spend a small amount on administration. But overall, in the long-term do they help the societies that they go to? Or provide a temporary sticking plaster?

She can't change. Nor can Medicines sans Frontiers stop the raiders killing her whole family because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Tsunami victims? There are people that live far more precarious lives than them. What about almost everyone in Bangladesh living on what is a massive flood plane.

I guess the world isn't a nice place and bad things happen to people that don't deserve it. Shocking I know. But it is true of all animals that are pushed to the edges of their ecosystem - they are more likely to die.

Pity there isnt a treaty of some kind that forces first world countries to interviene when human rights are violated on such a scale.

Some charities are good, some charities are bad. Some are run very efficiently, some are borderline scams for those who donate. Charities that are run by the right people like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation are probably better then government towards spending money to improve regions. Simple things like buying a million dollars of mosquito nets can do so much more good then sinking a million dollars into a water purification center or some other infrastructure that will be destroyed by conflict in 10 years time.

However, charity by itself is nowhere close to enough to support the world's most needing communities and regions. You need government aid. Personally I don't see why the US hasn't taken a couple million dollars annually and just puts it in the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation with the condition that x% of dollars must be spent towards improvement measures.

How long have we been trying wealth re-distribution (calling it foreign aid, subsidies, or whatever)? How well is it working?

How do you deal with corruption? That is the component that exacerbates all of the problems involved. Minimize corruption and ALL efforts would improve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

How long have we been trying wealth re-distribution (calling it foreign aid, subsidies, or whatever)? How well is it working?

How do you deal with corruption? That is the component that exacerbates all of the problems involved. Minimize corruption and ALL efforts would improve.

---

Your first sentence is really misguided. Any sort of tax break or increase is a form of wealth re-distribution. Taxes themselves are inherently wealth re-distribution. The type of wealth re-distribution you are talking about hasn't really happened because for the most part, most of the wealth re-distributed is towards the wealthy through taxes. Welfare and Medicaid are really stopgaps that prevent large portions of the population from starving or dying, not really to carve up the entire wealth of the rich.

For the most part, charity has been the dominant factor then any sort of "wealth re-distribution" so you really should be asking "how long have we been trying charity? How well is it working?"

Your second sentence means nothing really. Where is the corruption? What is the corruption you are talking about?

The work of charity is usually destroyed by the work of government, which is what happens when people opt for the political solution rather than the humanitarian.

Nations are never really honest, except in that you know they will be selfish in fulfilling their interests. Sometimes those interests are to make themselves look good, sometimes they are profit (which includes stabilizing other nations), but their interest is never really selfless. There are too many mouths to feed back home already.

Charity can allow people to circumvent those whose goal is to direct the funds of others. In some cases it also fulfills an imperative role of exposing the realities rather than the perceptions of a situation. My main thought in one of the more dramatic examples of this is the Belgian Congo.

it is not the concept of charity that is the problem.

the problem is twofold;
> permanently treating the symptom while refusing to treat the cause (aid instead of economic opportunity)
> do so on an industrial scale without recourse to public representation (gov't > eu > quango > dictator > Switzerland)

if we care not only about those dieing now, but the countless generations who will follow on in the same grinding poverty, at the same abject mercy of every 'minor' catastrophe, then we will make sure these people have economic opportunity.
> so, when drought happens in somalia in 2025 it is shrugged off in the same way that australians do so today, and when hurricanes hit bengal it is shrugged off the same way norwegians do today.
if we really don't give a damn about effecting a CURE for the most blighted parts of humanity but want to pretend that we care then we can continue as before supplying endless tents, water sterilisation tablets, and bags of food aid.
> so, when drought happens in somalia in 2025 hundreds of thousands starve just as they do today, and when hurricanes hit bengal hundreds of thousands are left homeless to die from disease just as they do today.

anyone who thinks that brussels billions of euro's in emergency aid does anything to help the long term prospects of the third world is naive.
anyone who thinks that brussels billions of euro's in CAP subsidies does anything but hinder the long term prospects of the third world is frankly deluding themselves.
anyone who claims to believe both of the above statements is either an utter moron or thoroughly dishonest.

Anybody who thinks emergency aid does anything for the long-term needs to take an english class.

It's not supposed to.

But it does save millions of people from dying in a particular crisis. It keeps people from dying today, but whether the will die in five years will be determined by other policies.

Like it or not, we will never stop pouring millions of dollars whenever a crisis occurs. Human nature, plain and simple.

So it's an exercise in making us in the West feel better, not changing anything. They'll die - just slightly later on. Oh, and often it's not even 5 years on. Sometimes we can get the timeframe down to months.

All it does is illustrate how self deluding people are.

~:smoking:

This is an interesting disucssion (not sure why i need to point that outfor this thread among all the others) and you are raising many good points on what is wrong about the context of aid and how it is difficult to get right.

At the root of the reasons for and against aid is a concern for the lives of others. Aid is easiest to understand in the hummanitarian sense -and there is a very clear deliniation (as HoreTore has been pointing out) between Humanitarian aid and economic Development aid. There are also other types of aid -each with their own purposes: e.g. prestige aid and military aid.

Humanitarian aid is un-ashamedly about an immediate response from those who have money/fiood to spare to those who have an urgent need of it becasue of some sort of disaster, be it natural (floods) or human (war, displacement). Let Rory be the liassez faire doctor and dismiss millions of lives if he pleases, given the choice and put on the ground to confront the staggering levels of misery that are the result of things like the floods in Pakistan or the ensuing mess of conflict in Somalia, I think(hope!) he might find it hard to be so disspassionate.

Thing is, humanitarian aid is absolutely no more than a sticking plaster. It's ambitions are no higher than seeing people fed, cured, sheltered and housed on a temporary basis.

Rory is then IMO quite right to say that the above is pointless if you do not address the causes of these disasters. Personaly however, I would go on to say that in fact, unless the vulnerability of people to disasters and their own capacity to resist, survive and recover from them are also addressed, then we probably should give up and abbandon them.

This is where development aid comes in.

As I said at the start, development aid is (or should be) first and foremost about improving the economy and the lot of the inhabitants and the running of a country. That's a massive field of political, industrial, service, social (etc) areas of work. Does this constitute meddling in other countries? er, yes, and the the extent to which aid agencies meddle depends to a large part on the assertiveness (and budget) of the government of the country in question. For example, somewhere like India for which the sums of aid are minute compared to their total budget, is highly assertive in setting parameters for which development agencies it will work with and on what areas (e.g. Kashmir is off limits... which makes the decisions of the aid agencies working in India difficult, effectively balancing the lives of Kashmiris against those of India's poor).

I think there are many misconceptions about the ways in which development aid is delivered. To start with, there are key differences between agencies, for example, US aid (by USAID, part of the State dept) is unashamedly about achieving and supporting US political interests, with aid money. France also uses aid to directly bolster its foreign policy objectives, as well as entrenching francophone culture. Nordic and Northern European countries (including the UK) tend to have much more of a focus on doing things independant of national foreign policy goals and with a focus on the interests of "normal" people in the recipient countries. The Uk though, has now said it will seek to support UK security interests more closely, but using the tools it has at its disposal -e.g. not by giving money for tanks/militias but making the state more responsive and work harder for its people, thus reducing the long-term likelihood of internal conflicts.

/wall of text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Your first sentence is really misguided. Any sort of tax break or increase is a form of wealth re-distribution. Taxes themselves are inherently wealth re-distribution. The type of wealth re-distribution you are talking about hasn't really happened because for the most part, most of the wealth re-distributed is towards the wealthy through taxes. Welfare and Medicaid are really stopgaps that prevent large portions of the population from starving or dying, not really to carve up the entire wealth of the rich.

For the most part, charity has been the dominant factor then any sort of "wealth re-distribution" so you really should be asking "how long have we been trying charity? How well is it working?"

Your second sentence means nothing really. Where is the corruption? What is the corruption you are talking about?

---

Of course the type of wealth redistribution I was talking about (actually implying as I was being a bit indirect on purpose) hasn't really happened. It cannot. Any aid measures are stopgap in character. Real change and betterment can really only be created by those involved in that culture/society themselves.

Corruption is important because it is corruption that is the primary stumbling block to self improvement. Add some corruption in the charity providers etc. and the situation gets even a little worse.

There is certainly nothing wrong with the intention of charity -- it really is one of the enobling virtues -- but its impact in practice is often far less than it should be.

I am of the exact opposite opinion to one earlier post regarding taxation. Taxation is never truly an economy of scale in action because of the inevitable inefficiencies of governance. There are some things governments must be tasked to provide because to do so by private means makes even less sense. However, I believe the assumption that government taxation is the best means to raise funds for any/all projects, even well-intentioned ones like charity aid, is inherently flawed.

Catholic charities, the Gates foundation, USMC charities are all well run organizations that don't skim off the largest slice for administration etc. They are better positioned and constituted to make charity effective.

First of all, I beg forgiveness for my lack of activity. As thread starter, I feel like it is my obligation.

I did however get stressed of time, and I didn't count on the activity this thread got. I guess that is positive.

I will take time ASAP to write more profoundly, should be tomorrow or the next day. However, in short, I have some notes.
Emergency aid should be a no-brainer. That is NOT what I intended this thread for. If my country would be hit by a tsunami, I would be the first to beg foreign powers for help.

So let us leave that issue aside, shall we?

And move on to the general aid, the do-gooders who spend their XXX$ a month on aid. If you wish, you may also discuss nations aid packages, although I personally would deem that is worthy of a topic of its own.

Till then!

@Brenus surplus dumping gets mentioned a lot, doesn't make it cliche. Market protectionism is a big problem for Africa, dumping goods is kinda criminal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“simply DESTROY the common agricultural policy as well as removing tariffs on cheap manufactured goods.”
Good idea.
Let’s buy their food to feed our cattle and let them die of starvation. Their Rich will become richer and well, market economy will do the rest, like in Ireland during the Potatoes Crisis. The Irish were dieing but Ireland (the Rich) was exporting food…
Let’s exploited their masses to provide the ones who will be able to live/work in Western Countries to have even cheaper products…

---

Interesting defense of the CAP there. To avoid repeating the errors of the potato famine though, what you need is fewer large estates and less state control of import/exports. I was under the impression that at the time of the potato famine, the British empire had strict rules on selling prices and markets. Irish agricultural produce was being exported as part of a macro economic policy of growing things elsewhere to their point of sale, or at least feeding England.

If it were farmers cooperatives and not large scale semi-feudal estates, individual producers and even subsistence farmers would have more say over their balance of consumption/export.

“Market protectionism is a big problem for Africa, dumping goods is kinda criminal” Agree with the second, absolutely against the 1st.
If you want Africa (because her we speak mostly about Africa, don’t we?) get out of poverty and famine you have to put more fence than ever to stop their greedy and corrupted leaders and elites to sell us food and others products they can sell to us, to stop to loot their best brains…
Market Protectionism is the key for development as shown by China and USA.
Until it won’t be profitable to sell to your own internal market, you will sell to the guys whose got the money…
So, to develop Africa, and in not ruining the Local European Market, taxes at the EU borders until the products get prices were competition would be about quality and quantity, not prices…
We do the same for Manufactured goods coming from India and China, in order to stop Children Exploitation and slavery….
The taxes levy could be used to build and develop micro economical projects in the countries of the incoming goods…
I know, will never happened.

“To avoid repeating the errors of the potato famine though, what you need is fewer large estates and less state control of import/exports. I was under the impression that at the time of the potato famine, the British Empire had strict rules on selling prices and markets.”
Absolutely not!!! The English Prime minister was in favour of a total free market and he refused to sent food in order to avoid to destroy the prices… He encouraged the exportation of food for the big landowners, refusing to interfere wit the “Market Laws”.

Seeing as the Famine came up here I'll chip in with my two cents.

The real problem was that the market was left to totally decide the value of the remaining food in Ireland, this is fine if the people have means but landless cottiers rarely do.


We saw this a while back when everyone got in a tizzy and started blaming the West for growing more bio-fuel. The thing was if you watched the news reports it was always people were rioting at high prices not that there was no food in said countries.

"The thing was if you watched the news reports it was always people were rioting at high prices not that there was no food in said countries." Yeap. And it how the French Revolution stated. Riots against the speculators stockpiling the wheat...
And it finished with a headless monarchy...