Generous George disgorges less than $1 per African

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Per
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the financial aid and charitable contributions from wealthier nations, particularly the U.S., to African countries facing poverty and various crises. Participants explore the implications of these contributions, the responsibilities of wealthier nations, and the internal versus external factors affecting Africa's development. The conversation touches on theoretical, conceptual, and political aspects of international aid and charity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express frustration over the perceived inadequacy of U.S. charitable contributions to Africa, questioning the motivations behind political decisions regarding aid.
  • Others argue that African nations should take more responsibility for their own development and that external aid cannot solve all their problems.
  • There are claims that the U.S. is the largest charitable donor in history, with some participants defending this position against critiques of American aid policies.
  • Discussions include the appropriateness of aid amounts, with references to the UN's targets for foreign aid and the complexities of how aid should be utilized effectively.
  • Some participants suggest that education and infrastructure development are critical long-term solutions to poverty in Africa, rather than merely providing financial aid.
  • Concerns about corruption in aid distribution and the effectiveness of debt forgiveness as a solution to Africa's economic challenges are also raised.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the effectiveness of current aid strategies or the responsibilities of wealthier nations. Multiple competing views remain regarding the role of external aid versus internal governance in addressing Africa's challenges.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include varying definitions of poverty, differing opinions on the impact of historical events on current conditions in Africa, and unresolved questions about the effectiveness of aid distribution mechanisms.

Loren Booda
Messages
3,108
Reaction score
4
I don't get it. Africa is the poorest continent on Earth, with a veritable panoply of plagues. The U.S., being the richest, is also the most shameful for its parsimony towards these suffering.

What does this tell us of George W. Bush's charitable beliefs? The Iraq debacle consumes every few days the dollar amount slated yearly for the African people, and the obsession over the tsunami disaster relief ignored that Africa's biweekly needs outpace the tsunami's overall.

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why can't Africans do something THEMSELVES to improve their condition?

You can't expect the rest of the world to give them everything they have. Despite the fact that they have a lot of problems they can still succeed if they choose to bury their differences and actually work together.

The world can only HELP Africa. It can't feed Africa.
 
Loren Booda said:
I don't get it. Africa is the poorest continent on Earth, with a veritable panoply of plagues. The U.S., being the richest, is also the most shameful for its parsimony towards these suffering.

What does this tell us of George W. Bush's charitable beliefs? The Iraq debacle consumes every few days the dollar amount slated yearly for the African people, and the obsession over the tsunami disaster relief ignored that Africa's biweekly needs outpace the tsunami's overall.

What kind of incoherant...

You basically say:

1. Africa is poor
2. The US is rich (and then a baseless insult as the US gives the most in charitable donations)
3. George W. Bush doesn't give enough money

Now... the only way this post of yours can deem itself worthy of a proper response is if you can somehow show Africa has only been poor during George W. Bush's presidency, we are by law responsible for supporting the entire continent of Africa on a day-to-day basis, and how the US is suppose ot be the only nation who supports the continent.

And this is pretty wacky timing as the US and UK have both agreed to criteria eliminating nations entire debts in Africa...
 
So what?Are the African countries independent...?Then they can govern themselves and the only reasons for their poverty are fully internal.

Charity...?

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
So what?Are the African countries independent...?Then they can govern themselves and the only reasons for their poverty are fully internal.

Might want to check some of the other threads or watch the news or pick a history book in order to evaluate that "fully internal" - could say that if they'd have never been discovered would probably be doing better.
 
PerennialII said:
Might want to check some of the other threads or watch the news or pick a history book in order to evaluate that "fully internal" - could say that if they'd have never been discovered would probably be doing better.

Why don't the Europeans fight anymore...?Like the 30 years war or civil wars...?

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
Why don't the Europeans fight anymore...?Like the 30 years war or civil wars...?

Daniel.
The 30 years war was a religious conflict fought in central europe between 1618 and 1648. And precisely how is this relevant to the discussion?

Perhaps your signature should read "Never let facts stand in the way of a good theory" :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
russ_watters said:
What would be a "proper" sum, Loren Booda?
2% of the developed world's GDP is the generally accepted target.
 
  • #10
Art said:
2% of the developed world's GDP is the generally accepted target.
2% to Africa alone or 2% in total foreign aid?

Fyi, our GDP is about $12 trillion, so 2% is $240 billion - or about 11% of our tax revenue.
 
  • #11
russ_watters said:
2% to Africa alone or 2% in total foreign aid?

Fyi, our GDP is about $12 trillion, so 2% is $240 billion - or about 11% of our tax revenue.
The 2% I believe, is what has been estimated as the cost of bringing everybody in the world up to an income of $1 per day.
The actual commitment by UN members (not sure if the US signed up for this one) is 0.7% of GNP to meet the 18 goals detailed in the Millenium Declaration by the target date of 2015. Only a handful of countries have so far reached this level of ODA. BTW That's world aid, not just Africa...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
yes! the pillaging of america is now on, surfs up, get it while the getting is good! We're poor, so we deserve it more than they do!

this is out-of-context drivel. the USA is by far the largest charitable donator in history! Give credit where credit is due.
 
  • #13
dextercioby said:
Why don't the Europeans fight anymore...?Like the 30 years war or civil wars...?

Daniel.

Probably 'cos people remember how it turned out in the 30 years war :biggrin: .
 
  • #14
Art said:
The 2% I believe, is what has been estimated as the cost of bringing everybody in the world up to an income of $1 per day.
The actual commitment by UN members (not sure if the US signed up for this one) is 0.7% of GNP to meet the 18 goals detailed in the Millenium Declaration by the target date of 2015. Only a handful of countries have so far reached this level of ODA. That's world aid, not just Africa...

Ok so basically, the US must give Africa a fish instead of teaching Africa to fish lol. Simple rhetoric. What good does making a bunch of people have $1 a day really do? Is there something magical about a single dollar? Is it comforting to anyone to think "oh thank god, at least they have $1"? Is it a completely forgotten notion that money is gone as quick as it arrives but a job is market is forever :)
 
  • #15
What do you think is at the very top when considering uses for the aid as a long term solution for most of their problems ... geez, might it be education ?
 
  • #16
I would be satisfied if the private sector contributed enough to rid the poor of such ills as elephantiasis (German pharmaceutical company alone, $1 billion in medicine). Those who complain about the U.S. responsibility toward Africa are too busy making excuses to avoid something seemingly painful or intractable to them. What percentage of our income do we share with the poor of the world? A reactionary response is only a demonstration of resignation.

Corruption is a major concern in distributing charity, but how beside war has Bush initiated to overcome inequity? The forgiving of debt is a cycle which mostly signifies economics skewed against the third world. I don't see us ever protecting the liberty of Africans by defending their lives, unless they harbor mineral wealth.
 
  • #17
Pengwuino said:
Ok so basically, the US must give Africa a fish instead of teaching Africa to fish lol. Simple rhetoric. What good does making a bunch of people have $1 a day really do? Is there something magical about a single dollar? Is it comforting to anyone to think "oh thank god, at least they have $1"? Is it a completely forgotten notion that money is gone as quick as it arrives but a job is market is forever :)
The $ a day is a benchmark set by the UN as the absolute minimum level of acceptable poverty. As to how the aid is distributed it's a little more complex than going around handing out a dollar a day to each and every African. As Perenial pointed out this money would be spent on education (to improve skills), health (as it's hard to be productive when you're sick or dead), capital projects (infrastructure etc.) and capital purchases (Agricultural machinery, machine tools etc.) As much of this expenditure will necessarily be spent importing the materials and equipment as they are not available in Africa the money will quickly find it's way back to the developed world in any case. But during it's passage through Africa it will leave behind a base which coupled with fairer world trade will enable the African countries to begin to climb out of the pit they are in.
Ultimately it is in everyone's interest for the Africans (and the rest of the world's poor) to become wealthy as they also will then become customers for the produce of the developed world. (BTW This was a concept pioneered by Henry Ford in relation to his workers pay)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
PerennialII said:
What do you think is at the very top when considering uses for the aid as a long term solution for most of their problems ... geez, might it be education ?
Doubtful. First everyone needs to be fed, second they need clean water and basic sanitation. Then, probably electricity and infrastructure. Education is not that high on the list.
 
  • #19
Art said:
The 2% I believe, is what has been estimated as the cost of bringing everybody in the world up to an income of $1 per day.
The actual commitment by UN members (not sure if the US signed up for this one) is 0.7% of GNP to meet the 18 goals detailed in the Millenium Declaration by the target date of 2015. Only a handful of countries have so far reached this level of ODA. BTW That's world aid, not just Africa...
Ok, that's what you think we should do. Now tell me why?.
 
  • #20
Art said:
The $ a day is a benchmark set by the UN as the absolute minimum level of acceptable poverty. As to how the aid is distributed it's a little more complex than going around handing out a dollar a day to each and every African. As Perenial pointed out this money would be spent on education (to improve skills), health (as it's hard to be productive when you're sick or dead), capital projects (infrastructure etc.) and capital purchases (Agricultural machinery, machine tools etc.) As much of this expenditure will necessarily be spent importing the materials and equipment as they are not available in Africa the money will quickly find it's way back to the developed world in any case. But during it's passage through Africa it will leave behind a base which coupled with fairer world trade will enable the African countries to begin to climb out of the pit they are in.
Ultimately it is in everyone's interest for the Africans (and the rest of the world's poor) to become wealthy as they also will then become customers for the produce of the developed world. (BTW This was a concept pioneered by Henry Ford in relation to his workers pay)

Yes i know its the UN minimum but what good does it do? Its basically a 'feel good' tactic by people so they can think "Oh at least there not poorer then some arbitrery level set by the UN". And education funding is most likely earmarked for "AIDS Education" as that's where a good portion of money goes. Plus of course, as russ says, its a secondary priority which should be dealt with after you build infrastructure and at least something resembling a functional market economy
 
  • #21
Loren Booda said:
I would be satisfied if the private sector contributed enough to rid the poor of such ills as elephantiasis (German pharmaceutical company alone, $1 billion in medicine). Those who complain about the U.S. responsibility toward Africa are too busy making excuses to avoid something seemingly painful or intractable to them. What percentage of our income do we share with the poor of the world? A reactionary response is only a demonstration of resignation.

Corruption is a major concern in distributing charity, but how beside war has Bush initiated to overcome inequity? The forgiving of debt is a cycle which mostly signifies economics skewed against the third world. I don't see us ever protecting the liberty of Africans by defending their lives, unless they harbor mineral wealth.

Your entire original post was glaring with reactionary rhetoric. The fact that you named Bush shows that its complete political garbage as Clinton wasnt exactly donating tens of billiosn of dollars to Africa. You are too busy blaming the US and making excuses to see the real problems facing Africa.

How exactly do you expect us to combat corruption in another country? Move in and take over? Or sign pieces of paper and HOPE someone gives a rats behind about it? Why haven't you complained about Europe? Why are they immune to your rhetoric? Sounds like knee-jerk reactionary rhetoric to me...
 
  • #22
Loren Booda said:
I don't see us ever protecting the liberty of Africans by defending their lives, unless they harbor mineral wealth.

And you never will. Period. We are not slaves of Africa. Africans should have enough sense to stop fighting.

People keep harping about aid to Africa. I wonder why the fact that Africans are largely responsible for their own condition by continuously engaging in useless civil wars and not being productive is not mentioned. An entire continent does not collapse and remain there because of the actions of certain countries more than fifty years ago. If such things happen, it is largely the people who are responsible. If the people don't change, no amount of aid will help.

As an analogy, you can take India. 50 years ago, it was a very poor country recovering from colonialism with life expectancies in the 40s. It faced a lot of the problems faced by Africans back then and now - health, poverty, illiteracy, unemployment,etc. Yet now, India is growing fast while Africa is still where it was 50 years ago.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
russ_watters said:
Doubtful. First everyone needs to be fed, second they need clean water and basic sanitation. Then, probably electricity and infrastructure. Education is not that high on the list.

Thing is how long can you keep feeding them.

First you need money to keep them from fighting.
Then you need money to ensure they don't choose authoritarianism again.
Then you need money to build their infrastructure, give them food, and keep them healthy.
Then you need money to make them literate and educate them - something which will likely take years.
Then you need money to encourage investement there so that those guys can get jobs.

And you are not sure whether this will work out or not.

Such continent building will take 50 years. As I said before, the initiative always rests with the Africans, not the world.
 
  • #24
sid_galt said:
Thing is how long can you keep feeding them.

First you need money to keep them from fighting.
Then you need money to ensure they don't choose authoritarianism again.
Then you need money to build their infrastructure, give them food, and keep them healthy.
Then you need money to make them literate and educate them - something which will likely take years.
Then you need money to encourage investement there so that those guys can get jobs.

And you are not sure whether this will work out or not.

Such continent building will take 50 years. As I said before, the initiative always rests with the Africans, not the world.
Good point. See: Somalia, 1992-1993.
 
  • #25
russ_watters said:
Doubtful. First everyone needs to be fed, second they need clean water and basic sanitation. Then, probably electricity and infrastructure. Education is not that high on the list.

Agreed ... but what you're listing don't belong to my list of long term, permanent, solutions. Although I'd say a true working infrastructure can't be build up without education.
 
  • #26
I think education shoudl be second. You should build an infrastructure and then once that's done and is showing itself to be stable, you advanced the infrastructure. This advancement should be done along with an advancement in education. Once you reach the next level of education and that new advanced infrastructure seems stable, advanced them both again. At the very bottom level however, infrastructure must come first because its hard to educate peopel with no infrastructure at all. What goods a bunch of teachers with no class room?
 
  • #27
russ_watters said:
Ok, that's what you think we should do. Now tell me why?.
This is what the signatories of the Millenium Declaration in the UN say we should do. I cannot give a detailed response as to exactly how these 18 targets and the 0.7% of GNP were arrived at. Which by the way they say will only bring relief for half the people currently classified as in poverty.

In response to Penqwuino's question, why they picked a dollar a day as the benchmark for poverty I really have no idea.

In answer to those who say the African countries bring poverty on themselves I point out that all of them are ex colonies of western powers who apart from plundering their natural resources, left them with an inheritance of corrupt and suppressive administrative structures. As many of these countries have only gained their independence in the relatively recent past a high level of churn is to be expected.
If you look back through history every country who has chosen to turn to communism has done so from an alternative of huge deprivation and/or starvation for the masses. We in the west may scorn at the economic shambles of communist countries but everything is relative and in comparison to what most of the inhabitants suffered before, communism was a boon. And so in Africa many, probably the majority of these former colonies, have flirted with Marxism at some point which attracted the attentions of the western powers who poured arms into the region. The eastern bloc did likewise and so the superpowers fought devastating wars of attrition for many years by proxy in places such as Angola. Even today there are instances of deliberate destabilisation. Magraret Thatcher the ex British PM's son was recently convicted for his role in plotting a coup in East Timor, a small oil producing country. This wasn't for idealogical reasons but a simple investment for him. He was to receive a share of the oil plunder for his monetery support. Now the cold war has ended the strategic importance of Africa has died and the major powers have left but the guns remain.
This is a bit of a long post but as it is a serious issue I thought it warranted a serious response.
 
  • #28
I think its probably beacuse its a relatively good indicator on a global scale of what is considered impoverished and using the dollar, it rounds out to a nice number.

That'd be an interesting sociological experiment. Peg the poverty rate to say.. the italian lira and see if peopel all of a sudden had a better view on poverty in Africa (seeing as how $1 ~ 2,000 lira)
 
  • #29
Thanks for your insight, Art.

A Sierra Leonean man told me that internecine warfare extends beyond written history in Africa, whereas the United States was founded when ripe for democracy, mostly isolated from the Old World tradition of killing and feuds [not to mention New World conflict, however]. He is thankful for shelter in our country, where he is quite productive and from which he may send money back to his homeland.

I am willing for the most part to stand by President Bush if he recognizes and acts on the needs of the very poor over the wants of the super rich. The mathematics of this imbalance seems simple. If not conscientious, the wealthy should be shamed into giving by their countrymen. We spend more feeding a dog in the U.S. than the most Africans earn.

What of that forementioned privately owned German pharmaceutical company giving one billion dollars of elaphantiasis medicine to Africa and Asia to wipe out that disease? Can anyone else give a similar example of such largess? What does religion have to say about our responsibility to deserving Africans?
 
  • #30
Pengwuino said:
That'd be an interesting sociological experiment. Peg the poverty rate to say.. the italian lira and see if peopel all of a sudden had a better view on poverty in Africa (seeing as how $1 ~ 2,000 lira)
Where did u get this info from?