# News Generous George disgorges less than $1 per African 1. Jun 8, 2005 ### Loren Booda 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. 2. Jun 8, 2005 ### sid_galt 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. 3. Jun 8, 2005 ### Pengwuino 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 doesnt 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.... 4. Jun 8, 2005 ### dextercioby So what?Are the African countries independent...?Then they can govern themselves and the only reasons for their poverty are fully internal. Charity...?:yuck: Daniel. 5. Jun 8, 2005 ### PerennialII 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. :yuck: 6. Jun 8, 2005 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor What would be a "proper" sum, Loren Booda? 7. Jun 8, 2005 ### dextercioby Why don't the Europeans fight anymore...?Like the 30 years war or civil wars...? Daniel. 8. Jun 8, 2005 ### Art 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" Last edited by a moderator: Jun 8, 2005 9. Jun 8, 2005 ### Art 2% of the developed world's GDP is the generally accepted target. 10. Jun 8, 2005 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor 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. Jun 8, 2005 ### Art 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: Jun 8, 2005
12. Jun 8, 2005

### quetzalcoatl9

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. Jun 8, 2005

### PerennialII

Probably 'cos people remember how it turned out in the 30 years war .

14. Jun 8, 2005

### Pengwuino

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. Jun 8, 2005

### PerennialII

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. Jun 8, 2005

I would be satisfied if the private sector contributed enough to rid the poor of such ills as elephantiasis (German pharmaceutical company alone, $1 billion in medicine). Those who complain about the U.S. responsibility toward Africa are too busy making excuses to avoid something seemingly painful or intractable to them. What percentage of our income do we share with the poor of the world? A reactionary response is only a demonstration of resignation. Corruption is a major concern in distributing charity, but how beside war has Bush initiated to overcome inequity? The forgiving of debt is a cycle which mostly signifies economics skewed against the third world. I don't see us ever protecting the liberty of Africans by defending their lives, unless they harbor mineral wealth. 17. Jun 8, 2005 ### Art The$ 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: Jun 8, 2005
18. Jun 8, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

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. Jun 8, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

Ok, that's what you think we should do. Now tell me why?.

20. Jun 8, 2005

### Pengwuino

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 thats 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. Jun 8, 2005

### Pengwuino

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 havent you complained about Europe? Why are they immune to your rhetoric? Sounds like knee-jerk reactionary rhetoric to me....

22. Jun 8, 2005

### sid_galt

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: Jun 8, 2005
23. Jun 8, 2005

### sid_galt

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. Jun 8, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

Good point. See: Somalia, 1992-1993.

25. Jun 8, 2005

### PerennialII

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.