Full Version: The End of Poverty?
It seems the UN has a new plan to drastically reduce global poverty.
The leader of the so called "Millennium Project" has this to say.
He notes one of the major problems that hinders this:
PBS Interview
Millennium Plan Website
Goals and Targets
10 Key Recommendations
I think the prospect on ending extreme poverty with two decades is something worth serious consideration.
Questions for Debate:
1. What do you think of the proposed global plan to end extreme poverty? Is it viable?
2. Can we (and the rest of the rich world) afford it?
3. Should we support it?
4. Does the American public have a false idea of how much we give to relief?
The leader of the so called "Millennium Project" has this to say.
QUOTE(Jeffrey Sachs)
The main message is that extreme poverty on our planet, which threatens us by causing instability, disease, causes millions of people to suffer and die unnecessarily, can be brought to a close by our generation. And the Millennium development goals, which are goals to cut by half that extreme poverty by the year 2015, are achievable. But we're not on course to achieve these goals right now. We can get on course through modest steps on our part, coupled with a partnership with the poorest places in the world.
Before I do that, I should say the biggest gap in our country is the gap in perception, because Americans are generous. You see how they responded to the tsunami. But they think we do twenty to thirty times more in development aid than we actually do. So right now, the rich world on average gives about 25 cents out of every $100 of rich world income to help the poor countries. In the United States, it's just 15 cents out of every $100 of our income. What we calculate to be needed is on the order of about 50 cents per every $100 of income.
Before I do that, I should say the biggest gap in our country is the gap in perception, because Americans are generous. You see how they responded to the tsunami. But they think we do twenty to thirty times more in development aid than we actually do. So right now, the rich world on average gives about 25 cents out of every $100 of rich world income to help the poor countries. In the United States, it's just 15 cents out of every $100 of our income. What we calculate to be needed is on the order of about 50 cents per every $100 of income.
He notes one of the major problems that hinders this:
QUOTE
MARGARET WARNER: Now, the Bush administration says they may be only giving 15 cents for every $100 of GDP on development aid, but that the U.S. is very generous when it comes to humanitarian aid, responding to disasters, for instance, whether it's the tsunami or famines or floods, and that also it provides military airlifts for goods, that there are a lot of remittances going back to poor countries from people who come here, migrate here to work and send the money back. What about that?
JEFFREY SACHS: Well, that's all true, but it just doesn't add up, because other countries do the same, and the overall level of our development assistance, public plus private, is perhaps 20 cents out of every $100, and it needs to be a bit higher. So I believe the generosity is there.The striking fact is Americans think that we're doing so much more than we are. Americans on opinion surveys think in their response that about a quarter of the federal budget is devoted to development assistance, and it's far less than 1 percent of the federal budget.
JEFFREY SACHS: Well, that's all true, but it just doesn't add up, because other countries do the same, and the overall level of our development assistance, public plus private, is perhaps 20 cents out of every $100, and it needs to be a bit higher. So I believe the generosity is there.The striking fact is Americans think that we're doing so much more than we are. Americans on opinion surveys think in their response that about a quarter of the federal budget is devoted to development assistance, and it's far less than 1 percent of the federal budget.
PBS Interview
Millennium Plan Website
Goals and Targets
10 Key Recommendations
I think the prospect on ending extreme poverty with two decades is something worth serious consideration.
Questions for Debate:
1. What do you think of the proposed global plan to end extreme poverty? Is it viable?
2. Can we (and the rest of the rich world) afford it?
3. Should we support it?
4. Does the American public have a false idea of how much we give to relief?
Questions for Debate:
1. What do you think of the proposed plan to end poverty? Is it viable?
2. Can we (and the rest of the rich world) afford it?
3. Should we support it?
4. Does the American public have a false idea of how much we give to relief?
No plan is viable. There are too many people in the world who want to live in extreme luxury at the expense of the rest of us. Even if all the rich were to have their wealth taken from them, and the funds distributed equally among the rest of the world, it would only be a matter of time until the situation goes right back to how it was. It might be different names at the top, but there would be some of us at the top, some at the bottom, and hopefully most of us somewhere inbetween.
Afford it? I doubt it. The average American would find themselves brought down several levels, and could very well start a world war. You can take from the few to support the many, but only until the few become as poor as the many. Then what?
Support it? No, back to my first comment. There will always be some who insist on being at the very top of the heap, hoarding resources he or she can't possibly use of consume in his/her lifetime. This will likely never change, human nature being what it is.
False idea? I don't know. Everyone has an opinion, and very few of those opinions are even close to being accurate. This is too big an issue to be settled in an easy fashion.
1. What do you think of the proposed plan to end poverty? Is it viable?
2. Can we (and the rest of the rich world) afford it?
3. Should we support it?
4. Does the American public have a false idea of how much we give to relief?
No plan is viable. There are too many people in the world who want to live in extreme luxury at the expense of the rest of us. Even if all the rich were to have their wealth taken from them, and the funds distributed equally among the rest of the world, it would only be a matter of time until the situation goes right back to how it was. It might be different names at the top, but there would be some of us at the top, some at the bottom, and hopefully most of us somewhere inbetween.
Afford it? I doubt it. The average American would find themselves brought down several levels, and could very well start a world war. You can take from the few to support the many, but only until the few become as poor as the many. Then what?
Support it? No, back to my first comment. There will always be some who insist on being at the very top of the heap, hoarding resources he or she can't possibly use of consume in his/her lifetime. This will likely never change, human nature being what it is.
False idea? I don't know. Everyone has an opinion, and very few of those opinions are even close to being accurate. This is too big an issue to be settled in an easy fashion.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Jan 22 2005, 06:50 PM)
No plan is viable. There are too many people in the world who want to live in extreme luxury at the expense of the rest of us. Even if all the rich were to have their wealth taken from them, and the funds distributed equally among the rest of the world, it would only be a matter of time until the situation goes right back to how it was. It might be different names at the top, but there would be some of us at the top, some at the bottom, and hopefully most of us somewhere inbetween.
Afford it? I doubt it. The average American would find themselves brought down several levels, and could very well start a world war. You can take from the few to support the many, but only until the few become as poor as the many. Then what?
You have to admit this is sort of a knee jerk response.
I ask, in all seriousness, did you read any of the quotes posted or links provided? No one is talking about taking massive amounts of money from the rich. Aid would remain at less than 1% of the budget. The project organizers talk of 50 cents for every hundred dollars.
The rich lose more than that in the couch. Heck, I'm a broke college student and I lose more than the two or three dollars a year they ask when vending machines eat my change.
I clarified the questions, if they may have caused some confusion.. but I can't claim to understand the reasoning behind your post.
Human nature didn't stop America from economic success, why should it stop the other humans?
Human nature didn't stop America from economic success, why should it stop the other humans?
Not a knee jerk response, but something I have been aware of for some time, especially when I debate the far right among us. There are a lot of selfish people in this world, a lot.
And if you study the 'human' nature of people like the robber barons of our not so distant economic history, you know what I mean. They treated their employees like serfs and peasants. That mentality is still with us, to a lesser degree perhaps, but still with us.
My point remains, you cannot cure poverty throughout the world. High minded it may be, but not all of us are high minded. Yassar Arafat got filthy rich before he died, think he did that investing in the stock market? He diverted funds given to him to use in behalf of the Palestinians. Think Arafat is the one bad leader in the world who siphons off money? People like him are everywhere.
And how much of Saddam's oil for food money ended up in UN officials pockets?
Locally, here in the USA, we have CEO types who are trying to be the robber barons of this generation. It is the same all over. I don't want to throw money at the problem until methods are devised to keep the greedy out of the loop.
Not a knee jerk response, but something I have been aware of for some time, especially when I debate the far right among us. There are a lot of selfish people in this world, a lot.
And if you study the 'human' nature of people like the robber barons of our not so distant economic history, you know what I mean. They treated their employees like serfs and peasants. That mentality is still with us, to a lesser degree perhaps, but still with us.
My point remains, you cannot cure poverty throughout the world. High minded it may be, but not all of us are high minded. Yassar Arafat got filthy rich before he died, think he did that investing in the stock market? He diverted funds given to him to use in behalf of the Palestinians. Think Arafat is the one bad leader in the world who siphons off money? People like him are everywhere.
And how much of Saddam's oil for food money ended up in UN officials pockets?
Locally, here in the USA, we have CEO types who are trying to be the robber barons of this generation. It is the same all over. I don't want to throw money at the problem until methods are devised to keep the greedy out of the loop.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Jan 22 2005, 09:45 PM)
Locally, here in the USA, we have CEO types who are trying to be the robber barons of this generation. It is the same all over. I don't want to throw money at the problem until methods are devised to keep the greedy out of the loop.
This is why I altered my question to reflect the true aim of the project which is to end extreme poverty.
The problem in the countries that are being targeted in not simply the efforts of greedy men, it is the lack of infrastructure, educational opportunities, health facilities. All the things the poor in America take for granted.
If things in sub-saharan Africa actually were actually the same as they are in the US It would be the greatest humanitarian success in history. It would change the face of the world forever. It would pay off thousands fold in saved security costs and improved trade relations. Sometime I wonder if we know just how far gone things are in places like Chad...
The greedy can only do so much damage and with the awesome wealth the US and other Western nations have built up, we can repair most of it, if only we made an organized effort.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jan 22 2005, 07:34 PM)
I ask, in all seriousness, did you read any of the quotes posted of links provided? No one is talking about taking massive amounts of money from the rich. Aid would remain at less than 1% of the budget. The project organizers talk of 50 cents for every hundred dollars.
I read through the links, especially the list of things the UN wants to accomplish. The list is quite an undertaking. But the real problem that I have with this idea, is that it is the amount of money that we send that makes the difference, or at least that is what I'm reading into the interview. No amount of money is going to make a difference in the long run unless it is spent/invested appropriately. Unless you enable impoverished countries to create an economy that will support itself, the conditions will simply arise again once the money well runs dry.
It just sounds like welfare for the rest of the world to me. (But that is another story) I'm all about helping people that are in need, but I'm reminded of the "teach a man to fish" proverb when ideas like this come up.
QUOTE(StlJoe @ Jan 22 2005, 10:09 PM)
No amount of money is going to make a difference in the long run unless it is spent/invested appropriately. Unless you enable impoverished countries to create an economy that will support itself, the conditions will simply arise again once the money well runs dry.
It just sounds like welfare for the rest of the world to me. (But that is another story) I'm all about helping people that are in need, but I'm reminded of the "teach a man to fish" proverb when ideas like this come up.
It just sounds like welfare for the rest of the world to me. (But that is another story) I'm all about helping people that are in need, but I'm reminded of the "teach a man to fish" proverb when ideas like this come up.
...but teaching men to fish (and giving them fishing poles, lines, hooks and bait to boot) are exactly what these projects are about.
These are not monetary handouts, they are targeted projects for schooling health needs, basic nutrition etc.
That is why it has hope of working, they aren't handing out any checks, just mosquito nets so that millions won't die needlessly of malaria.
The problem in the countries that are being targeted in not simply the efforts of greedy men, it is the lack of infrastructure, educational opportunities, health facilities. All the things the poor in America take for granted
I think that infrastructure and education take a back seat to the poor climate for the growing of food in a lot of the African countries.
I applaud the thought, and would support the effort, but realistic solutions are needed. Those countries that can produce food are not likely able to feed all the starving every year, and how do you relocate the hungry to good climate areas without displacing those who are already there? The haves, no matter how little or how much they have, are not going to seriosly diminish their life style for those who are truly in abject poverty. That is part of the human nature I refer to.
It doesn't hurt me financially to help, as I have learned to live on a portion of my income, and save the rest, but how many people are able or willing to do that?
Look at the churches of the world, especially the Christian ones that most of us are familiar with. How many of them have programs in place to help the starving? The largest of them, the Catholic Church has programs, but it also has tremendous amounts of property, assets, art collections, etc. that serve no religious purpose. I was raised a protestant, and up til the age of 18 never heard one word from the pulpit about helping the extreme poor in other countries, or anywhere for that matter. I did hear occasionally something about bringing the Word of God to them, and that was from the occasional missionary who was soliciting funds. On one occasion, it was found out that our pastor got a cut of the missionary take.
We can't trust some of the churches, or the UN leadership, or the politicians/military of the countries in need. Just feeding the starving is not going to do it. There has to be change, the causes of the problems must be addressed. We can't make it rain where and when we want, so those living in
sub-saharan Africa cannot continue to stay where they are.
Just like my favorite issue, education, simply throwing money at the problems is not the answer. Fundamental change is required, and most of us don't like change.
I think that infrastructure and education take a back seat to the poor climate for the growing of food in a lot of the African countries.
I applaud the thought, and would support the effort, but realistic solutions are needed. Those countries that can produce food are not likely able to feed all the starving every year, and how do you relocate the hungry to good climate areas without displacing those who are already there? The haves, no matter how little or how much they have, are not going to seriosly diminish their life style for those who are truly in abject poverty. That is part of the human nature I refer to.
It doesn't hurt me financially to help, as I have learned to live on a portion of my income, and save the rest, but how many people are able or willing to do that?
Look at the churches of the world, especially the Christian ones that most of us are familiar with. How many of them have programs in place to help the starving? The largest of them, the Catholic Church has programs, but it also has tremendous amounts of property, assets, art collections, etc. that serve no religious purpose. I was raised a protestant, and up til the age of 18 never heard one word from the pulpit about helping the extreme poor in other countries, or anywhere for that matter. I did hear occasionally something about bringing the Word of God to them, and that was from the occasional missionary who was soliciting funds. On one occasion, it was found out that our pastor got a cut of the missionary take.
We can't trust some of the churches, or the UN leadership, or the politicians/military of the countries in need. Just feeding the starving is not going to do it. There has to be change, the causes of the problems must be addressed. We can't make it rain where and when we want, so those living in
sub-saharan Africa cannot continue to stay where they are.
Just like my favorite issue, education, simply throwing money at the problems is not the answer. Fundamental change is required, and most of us don't like change.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Jan 22 2005, 10:31 PM)
I think that infrastructure and education take a back seat to the poor climate for the growing of food in a lot of the African countries.
Many of the African countries have considerable natural resources they could use to import food. Oil, diamond mines, gold, uranium etc. Not to mention much of Africa does indeed have a climate suitable for the growing of food. It's right where all that tropical rainforest used to be
Countries like Japan import a substantial majority of their food.
QUOTE
The haves, no matter how little or how much they have, are not going to seriosly diminish their life style for those who are truly in abject poverty. That is part of the human nature I refer to.
They won't have to. I remember speaking to a friend form Nigeria (a oil giant, by the way) who reveled to me that only the very rich in his country have computers.
Rich in Africa, is not rich in America. The increased education in the country will produce skilled workers and elevate even the well-off's status.
QUOTE
We can't trust some of the churches, or the UN leadership, or the politicians/military of the countries in need. Just feeding the starving is not going to do it. There has to be change, the causes of the problems must be addressed. We can't make it rain where and when we want, so those living in
sub-saharan Africa cannot continue to stay where they are.
sub-saharan Africa cannot continue to stay where they are.
They call it sub-saharan for a reason, it does rain there.
To say nothing of poor countries in the tropics like Nicaragua or Cambodia, what's their excuse?
QUOTE(turnea @ Jan 22 2005, 10:45 PM)
Many of the African countries have considerable natural resources they could use to import food. Oil, diamond mines, gold, uranium etc.
Unfortunately, they have been selling their diamonds to fund wars.
QUOTE
Countries like Japan import a substantial majority of their food.
Yes, but they also have industries that help them support their importing of things that they cannot grow or build themselves. They have a thriving economy based on the exportation of goods to other countries.
QUOTE
The increased education in the country will produce skilled workers and elevate even the well-off's status.
Education is a wonderful thing, but where will these educated people work? You cannot simply cut and paste an infrastructure like in America or even Japan into a country that cannot support it.
QUOTE(StlJoe @ Jan 22 2005, 11:03 PM)
Unfortunately, they have been selling their diamonds to fund wars.
Some have not all...
QUOTE
In an important recent policy initiative, the U.S. government established a set of transparent indicators that identifies poor but reasonably well governed countries that can qualify for funding from its new Millennium Challenge Account. The list of 30 countries includes Bolivia, Ghana, Mali, and Mozambique. Despite significant efforts and real progress, these countries, and many like them, pass the governance test but still fail to make adequate progress toward the Goals.
Why the Goals are important
The others aren't likely to sit and watch there neighbors develop. Not all of Africa is plagued by civil war. Most of it is simply crippled by poverty.
QUOTE
Yes, but they also have industries that help them support their importing of things that they cannot grow or build themselves. They have a thriving economy based on the exportation of goods to other countries.
Like diamonds, gold, oil and uranium?
Not to mention many of these nations can produce significant amounts of food and cattle QUOTE
Education is a wonderful thing, but where will these educated people work? You cannot simply cut and paste an infrastructure like in America or even Japan into a country that cannot support it.
The plan stretches over twenty years. That is time enough to let the employment opportunities grow with the people.
I certainly have no problem with donating 50 cents out of every $100 of GDP to eliminate poverty. That is I would have no problem if I thought it would do the job AND leave societies that were stable and self-sustainable.
One problem is I feel at a loss trying to read the Millennium list of solutions and evaluate them. It all seems so compartmentalized and by the numbers. Probably I should study it more and get back to this thread. Still we are asked to make wise decisions on remote matters whose solutions are really hard for the average citizen to understand.
Two things I would like to see emphasized are:
1. An analysis of carrying capacity nation by nation with some type of upper limit placed on the population each nation can handle and a plan in place to see that education and public policy reflects that limit.
2. A goal of making the countries as self-sufficient as possible. So much instability is built around nations and interests coveting the resources of other countries. Being able to grow your own food and provide for most of your other needs would be an enormous boon to the goal of stability and a sustainable economy. Perhaps some of the smaller nations will have to be joined together to make this possible.
One problem is I feel at a loss trying to read the Millennium list of solutions and evaluate them. It all seems so compartmentalized and by the numbers. Probably I should study it more and get back to this thread. Still we are asked to make wise decisions on remote matters whose solutions are really hard for the average citizen to understand.
Two things I would like to see emphasized are:
1. An analysis of carrying capacity nation by nation with some type of upper limit placed on the population each nation can handle and a plan in place to see that education and public policy reflects that limit.
2. A goal of making the countries as self-sufficient as possible. So much instability is built around nations and interests coveting the resources of other countries. Being able to grow your own food and provide for most of your other needs would be an enormous boon to the goal of stability and a sustainable economy. Perhaps some of the smaller nations will have to be joined together to make this possible.
QUOTE
Questions for Debate:
1. What do you think of the proposed global plan to end extreme poverty? Is it viable?
2. Can we (and the rest of the rich world) afford it?
3. Should we support it?
4. Does the American public have a false idea of how much we give to relief?
1. What do you think of the proposed global plan to end extreme poverty? Is it viable?
2. Can we (and the rest of the rich world) afford it?
3. Should we support it?
4. Does the American public have a false idea of how much we give to relief?
1. I doubt it, as big countries as, lets say, United States, would not do as much as other countries, which simple makes it pointless, we ALL have to pitch in.
2. Sweden can afford it, but i donīt know if the United States can, as its a poor nation (living on borrowed money etc). But as they SAY they are the richest nation, they can start out easy, and give the same amount as an African nation, and then in a couple of years, come close to Western Nations, like the European, (and donīt forget Japan, whom is the most giving of ALL nations, and they are only 127 million people).
3. Why shouldīnt you ? Your not part of the world?
4. Of course they have, you said it in the Main post. Americans are ignorant about how much they give, but as they have been indoctrinated from childhood that the nation is the biggest and greatest and there is Dragons far far away. Everyone knows this, except americans of course. And i donīt think they want to know how it really is, as this would shatter their world....... Or am i wrong?
Can we (and the rest of the rich world) afford it?
Conservative estimates indicate that private US contributions towards foreign assistance total around 35 billion a year. With government ODA contributions, that would place our total assistance at 50 cents per 100 dollars GDP. The exact total needed, according to the New UN plan. We already give enough.
Edited to add: Full PDF article can be found here: faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/acbrooks/The Privatization of Foreign Aid.pdf
Conservative estimates indicate that private US contributions towards foreign assistance total around 35 billion a year. With government ODA contributions, that would place our total assistance at 50 cents per 100 dollars GDP. The exact total needed, according to the New UN plan. We already give enough.
Edited to add: Full PDF article can be found here: faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/acbrooks/The Privatization of Foreign Aid.pdf
QUOTE
The claim of American stinginess results from the common misperception that ODA, dubbed the "donor performance measure," is the true, and only, measure of generosity abroad. In 1958, the World Council of Churches called on developed nations to devote one percent of national income to international development. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) later adopted a target of 0.7 percent and now publishes an annual report ranking donors in terms of ODA as a percentage of GNP.
*snip*
Gauging national generosity solely by government giving ignores new economic realities. Until a decade ago, most international resources flowing into developing countries came from governments. But in 1992, foreign direct investment and financial markets took off in emerging economies. For the first time, developing countries were attracting the kind of private capital that creates and sustains development. As financial flows went private, so did foreign assistance.
While ODA stagnated, private giving skyrocketed. Europeans and the Japanese continue to give primarily through their governments, but the OECD's outdated measure fails to take into account how Americans now give abroad. In 2000, the last year for which comparative figures are available, U.S. ODA totaled $9.9 billion. This figure includes the budgets of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Peace Corps, contributions to the World Bank, and some State and Defense Department humanitarian assistance. Together, these programs account for just over one-sixth of total U.S. assistance -- public and private -- to developing countries. Private giving makes up more than 60 percent. The remainder -- $12.7 billion in 2000 -- is government aid that, although not within ODA guidelines, is still foreign assistance. This includes aid to Israel, Russia, the Central Asian Republics, and central and eastern European nations and support for the National Endowment for Democracy and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund.
*snip*
Gauging national generosity solely by government giving ignores new economic realities. Until a decade ago, most international resources flowing into developing countries came from governments. But in 1992, foreign direct investment and financial markets took off in emerging economies. For the first time, developing countries were attracting the kind of private capital that creates and sustains development. As financial flows went private, so did foreign assistance.
While ODA stagnated, private giving skyrocketed. Europeans and the Japanese continue to give primarily through their governments, but the OECD's outdated measure fails to take into account how Americans now give abroad. In 2000, the last year for which comparative figures are available, U.S. ODA totaled $9.9 billion. This figure includes the budgets of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Peace Corps, contributions to the World Bank, and some State and Defense Department humanitarian assistance. Together, these programs account for just over one-sixth of total U.S. assistance -- public and private -- to developing countries. Private giving makes up more than 60 percent. The remainder -- $12.7 billion in 2000 -- is government aid that, although not within ODA guidelines, is still foreign assistance. This includes aid to Israel, Russia, the Central Asian Republics, and central and eastern European nations and support for the National Endowment for Democracy and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund.
Mrs. Pigpen
You do know that the limit is ridiculously low?
And the only countries in the world, whom actually give enough, is Sweden, Norway, and some other small countries. And they donīt think its enought, and want to give 1%....
You do know that the limit is ridiculously low?
And the only countries in the world, whom actually give enough, is Sweden, Norway, and some other small countries. And they donīt think its enought, and want to give 1%....
QUOTE(Gusten @ Jan 23 2005, 06:00 AM)
Mrs. Pigpen
You do know that the limit is ridiculously low?
And the only countries in the world, whom actually give enough, is Sweden, Norway, and some other small countries. And they donīt think its enought, and want to give 1%....
You do know that the limit is ridiculously low?
And the only countries in the world, whom actually give enough, is Sweden, Norway, and some other small countries. And they donīt think its enought, and want to give 1%....
Low though 50 billion a year may be, according to the 'Millennium project', that sum should cut world poverty in half by the year 2015, if the rest of the world is as generous as Americans.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jan 23 2005, 03:05 PM)
QUOTE(Gusten @ Jan 23 2005, 06:00 AM)
Mrs. Pigpen
You do know that the limit is ridiculously low?
And the only countries in the world, whom actually give enough, is Sweden, Norway, and some other small countries. And they donīt think its enought, and want to give 1%....
You do know that the limit is ridiculously low?
And the only countries in the world, whom actually give enough, is Sweden, Norway, and some other small countries. And they donīt think its enought, and want to give 1%....
Low though 50 billion a year may be, according to the 'Millennium project', that sum should cut world poverty in half by the year 2015, if the rest of the world is as generous as Americans.
You seem to be confused, its the United States whom is not as generous as the rest of the world.
It has already been partially addressed by others, but here is more.
Having diamonds/oil does little for the Africans, as the local governmental leaders
are getting filthy rich while many are still suffering. Uranium? Pretty much a dead product, it only takes a little to support a lot of nuclear power plants, and we aren't building any of those. I suppose we could use some more nuclear weapons, tho.
Rain isn't the only thing needed. Good soil, pest control, fertilizer, and probably the most important, birth control. And there are other types of climates, the political climate for example. Some Asian, Eastern, Middle Eastern, and African countries would have starvation no matter how much food we dumped at their harbors. Starvation is used by political leaders as just another weapon to eliminate those who have a different religion or political affiliation.
Those seeking to end poverty have lofty goals, and I applaud that. But anytime you get billions of dollars involved, the selfish and greedy are the first to line up at the feeding trough. You have to get past them in order to get the help where it is needed.
Watch the efforts as they roll out in Indonesia, etc. as a result of the tsunami.
This will give us an idea how an anti-poverty program will work, or won't work.
It could be that this relief effort is a starting point for long term relief around the world, and it could also become just another political tool used by despots, terrorists, and so on.
Sorry, I am too cynical about human nature. There are not enough of us wanting to do the right thing to overcome those who just want to get rich off whatever situation presents itself.
Having diamonds/oil does little for the Africans, as the local governmental leaders
are getting filthy rich while many are still suffering. Uranium? Pretty much a dead product, it only takes a little to support a lot of nuclear power plants, and we aren't building any of those. I suppose we could use some more nuclear weapons, tho.
Rain isn't the only thing needed. Good soil, pest control, fertilizer, and probably the most important, birth control. And there are other types of climates, the political climate for example. Some Asian, Eastern, Middle Eastern, and African countries would have starvation no matter how much food we dumped at their harbors. Starvation is used by political leaders as just another weapon to eliminate those who have a different religion or political affiliation.
Those seeking to end poverty have lofty goals, and I applaud that. But anytime you get billions of dollars involved, the selfish and greedy are the first to line up at the feeding trough. You have to get past them in order to get the help where it is needed.
Watch the efforts as they roll out in Indonesia, etc. as a result of the tsunami.
This will give us an idea how an anti-poverty program will work, or won't work.
It could be that this relief effort is a starting point for long term relief around the world, and it could also become just another political tool used by despots, terrorists, and so on.
Sorry, I am too cynical about human nature. There are not enough of us wanting to do the right thing to overcome those who just want to get rich off whatever situation presents itself.
Hmm...I got a real problem with this man's numbers..1%? Come on. We give countries so much money..I just don't believe the 1%. Perhaps it is how he decides what is giving and what is aiding and what is just plain foreign policy. ?
There is this new book out..forget the name but if your that interested I will hack it up..and the author explored all the past governments who fell or dissolved and what it was that caused their dissolution. The most prominent one being violence...like war or some mass genocide. Yes this still happens . I think America gives a lot to help stabilize or prevent these situations occurring or to alleviate the suffering they cause. Did it matter how much we gave Rwanda? We gave them millions before the 1994 genocide..and exactly what do you think they used the money for? It obviously didn't matter because the other needed element of giving or assisting a nation did not exist. What would of happened if in 1994 we chose to give more military assistance to that region then withdrawing it? Why is that never considered stingy? Why do we never hear how horribly stingy the Belgium were to the Rwandans? America is without question the great military benefactor of the world and I happen to believe military might, strength and ability is a major factor in ending extreme poverty. ..because I believe extreme poverty is always linked to extreme violence.
I like how someone here gave the example of ...I think that infrastructure and education take a back seat to the poor climate for the growing of food in a lot of the African countries.
How false...for example take Zimbabwe..it was once called the bread basket of Africa and now? It faces mass starvation..how so? Because it has a corrupt government who rules with violence, intimidation and thuggery. No amount of money is going to assist Zimbabwe to end her extreme situation of poverty. If we wished to put an end to it today then I honestly believe we would have to do so by force..we would have to forcibly remove President Mugabe or support his opposition and not with just money..we would have to arm them and militarily assist them.
And the comment that African nations sell their diamonds to support their wars...well who knowingly buys them? There is a UN oversight supposedly in place now to ensure that Europeans are no longer gobbling up blood diamonds but it is said to be a joke and basically irrelevant. Don't we..especially so Europeans..hold some responsibility for what these diamonds have paid for?
Or how about Sudan another current example..who invested billions in the oil infrastructure of that country? Who lined the pockets of not only a corrupt government but apparently one who seeks an ethnic cleansing agenda? Gee...seems to me money actually exasperated this nation's conflicts and drove many into extreme poverty. And now we have the US ..yes and only the US mind you.. in there with her military machines having to transport food and supplies to the needy because it is the only way it will make it to them..by a military escort. So would it matter how much in Sweden they gave to buy the extreme poor in Sudan food and water? Isn't America's contribution..it's military might...the integral factor in this situation? Not that I think it is a solution..just merely an alleviation.
I think my feelings on this relate a lot to current debate I had here on the UN's belief that poverty is a threat. I believe the proposed UN reforms reflects my own ideas on this subject..that to fight or eliminate extreme cases of poverty in the world often you have to do just that...fight.
There is this new book out..forget the name but if your that interested I will hack it up..and the author explored all the past governments who fell or dissolved and what it was that caused their dissolution. The most prominent one being violence...like war or some mass genocide. Yes this still happens . I think America gives a lot to help stabilize or prevent these situations occurring or to alleviate the suffering they cause. Did it matter how much we gave Rwanda? We gave them millions before the 1994 genocide..and exactly what do you think they used the money for? It obviously didn't matter because the other needed element of giving or assisting a nation did not exist. What would of happened if in 1994 we chose to give more military assistance to that region then withdrawing it? Why is that never considered stingy? Why do we never hear how horribly stingy the Belgium were to the Rwandans? America is without question the great military benefactor of the world and I happen to believe military might, strength and ability is a major factor in ending extreme poverty. ..because I believe extreme poverty is always linked to extreme violence.
I like how someone here gave the example of ...I think that infrastructure and education take a back seat to the poor climate for the growing of food in a lot of the African countries.
How false...for example take Zimbabwe..it was once called the bread basket of Africa and now? It faces mass starvation..how so? Because it has a corrupt government who rules with violence, intimidation and thuggery. No amount of money is going to assist Zimbabwe to end her extreme situation of poverty. If we wished to put an end to it today then I honestly believe we would have to do so by force..we would have to forcibly remove President Mugabe or support his opposition and not with just money..we would have to arm them and militarily assist them.
And the comment that African nations sell their diamonds to support their wars...well who knowingly buys them? There is a UN oversight supposedly in place now to ensure that Europeans are no longer gobbling up blood diamonds but it is said to be a joke and basically irrelevant. Don't we..especially so Europeans..hold some responsibility for what these diamonds have paid for?
Or how about Sudan another current example..who invested billions in the oil infrastructure of that country? Who lined the pockets of not only a corrupt government but apparently one who seeks an ethnic cleansing agenda? Gee...seems to me money actually exasperated this nation's conflicts and drove many into extreme poverty. And now we have the US ..yes and only the US mind you.. in there with her military machines having to transport food and supplies to the needy because it is the only way it will make it to them..by a military escort. So would it matter how much in Sweden they gave to buy the extreme poor in Sudan food and water? Isn't America's contribution..it's military might...the integral factor in this situation? Not that I think it is a solution..just merely an alleviation.
I think my feelings on this relate a lot to current debate I had here on the UN's belief that poverty is a threat. I believe the proposed UN reforms reflects my own ideas on this subject..that to fight or eliminate extreme cases of poverty in the world often you have to do just that...fight.
QUOTE(Gusten @ Jan 23 2005, 09:43 AM)
You seem to be confused, its the United States whom is not as generous as the rest of the world.
Let's stop with the one-liners, please. Additionally, Gusten, your debates are to be civil (meaning drop the inflammatory, blanket generalizations about certain nationalities) and constructive.
TOPICS:
1. What do you think of the proposed global plan to end extreme poverty? Is it viable?
2. Can we (and the rest of the rich world) afford it?
3. Should we support it?
4. Does the American public have a false idea of how much we give to relief?
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Jan 23 2005, 08:54 AM)
It has already been partially addressed by others, but here is more.
Having diamonds/oil does little for the Africans, as the local governmental leaders
are getting filthy rich while many are still suffering.
Already addressed this one, the program has already identified dozens of countries whose government is not corrupt that could receive aid.
QUOTE
Rain isn't the only thing needed. Good soil, pest control, fertilizer, and probably the most important, birth control.
Two of those are things that could be part of an aid package, many of them have good soil, others have things they can trade for food/
QUOTE
Those seeking to end poverty have lofty goals, and I applaud that. But anytime you get billions of dollars involved, the selfish and greedy are the first to line up at the feeding trough. You have to get past them in order to get the help where it is needed.
Which, again is why no one is proposing giving out money...
QUOTE
Sorry, I am too cynical about human nature. There are not enough of us wanting to do the right thing to overcome those who just want to get rich off whatever situation presents itself.
By that logic, no country could ever be rich...
QUOTE
Already addressed this one, the program has already identified dozens of countries whose government is not corrupt that could receive aid.
Can you please show me where they listed these states? I just have a hard time identifying nations who allow their people to live in such extreme poverty as not being corrupt.
QUOTE(bucket @ Jan 23 2005, 02:13 PM)
Can you please show me where they listed these states? I just have a hard time identifying nations who allow their people to live in such extreme poverty as not being corrupt.
It's not a matter of "allowing" things to happen, many of these countries simply lack the resources to get on their feet and become productive.
The report referenced a US list that I've included a link to, including Mali, Mozambique, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Morroco etc.
Link(PDF)
The UN organizers refer to other countries as well.
The concerns raised are not things that the project organizers have ignored. These are not just idealist bureaucrats crying "hope!" when their is none. I would again suggest visiting the website, it does discuss these thing.
Check out "Box 9" of this particular page below.
Recommendations for the international system to support country-level processes
QUOTE(Jeffery Sachs)
First are the problems of sustainability in impoverished places that lack the necessary resources to address these problems. Poverty is a major factor in causing unsustainability. Impoverished people, desperate to grow food on fragile soils of the wet-dry tropics, cut down trees. Impoverished people without access to a modern energy grid, use biomass to meet up to 95 percent of their energy requirements, which can lead to large-scale deforestation. Impoverished people in their desperation don't have the necessary means to make the kind of investments that we have made, for example in more sustainable energy technologies. Hence, unsustainability is a characteristic of that downward spiral of the poverty trap that I talked about earlier. It is not primarily a matter of bad governance or bad management. Instead it is principally a matter of impoverishment.
[...]
We shouldn't be afraid because not only do we need to solve the problems, but also the amounts required to do so are not so big when you look. That's the deep tragic joke in all of this. We are so rich that if wed look systematically at what is really needed we'd say, "Is that all? What's this fuss been about all this time?" That's the deep joke: were afraid to look, and if we did look we'd find out that it's all quite manageable.
[...]
We shouldn't be afraid because not only do we need to solve the problems, but also the amounts required to do so are not so big when you look. That's the deep tragic joke in all of this. We are so rich that if wed look systematically at what is really needed we'd say, "Is that all? What's this fuss been about all this time?" That's the deep joke: were afraid to look, and if we did look we'd find out that it's all quite manageable.
The State of the World: Assessing Global Sustainability
QUOTE(turnea @ Jan 23 2005, 04:58 PM)
QUOTE(bucket @ Jan 23 2005, 02:13 PM)
Can you please show me where they listed these states? I just have a hard time identifying nations who allow their people to live in such extreme poverty as not being corrupt.
It's not a matter of "allowing" things to happen, many of these countries simply lack the resources to get on their feet and become productive.
The report referenced a US list that I've included a link to, including Mali, Mozambique, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Morroco etc.
QUOTE
In Sri Lanka, there are concerns that government forces and separatist Tamil Tiger rebels may exploit the tsunami crisis to strengthen their positions. Mutual mistrust exists despite a fragile truce dating to 2002, and there are reports both sides are trying to control aid distribution.
QUOTE
It's not a matter of "allowing" things to happen, many of these countries simply lack the resources to get on their feet and become productive.
Well Sri Lanka jumps right out at me (and MrsP)..because when I lived in Switzerland I learnt that being from Sri Lanka was a guaranteed acceptance into Switzerland as a political asylum seeker. The Tamil tigers ever heard of them? ..come on even in the US we hear of this nation's extremely violent conflict. How has the Sri Lankan govt been excused of committing violence against it's people? When did we all agree to forget this happened? How is the Sri Lankan govt's role and inaction thereafter not "allowing" her nation to rot in conflict and turmoil and ultimately extreme poverty? The only thing Sri Lanka will lack if she continues this violent existence will be people to blow up and massacre.
I could go nation by nation with that list and I would be surprised if I found one country's government that wasn't in some way allowing, permitting, encouraging or just plain ignoring very dire situations of violence within their nation because of their corrupt desires to rule.
You act as if it is such a random thing ..something governments are inflicted with..not inflicting on their people. Poverty is not natural..it is not the natural state a human seeks and it is most often inflicted on them..by direct choice, policy or inaction of some kind of political body or source of authority.
Extreme poverty is a result of extreme conflict or violence and I can't think of any situation in the world where such violence has just randomly befallen a nation without any role or contribution from their government.
I could understand if you were saying this about individuals..but this project seems very removed from the individual and more focused on the political..the whole state itself. That bothers me as I feel if the individuals themselves in these countries had a choice..or had the ability or even just had the right to pursue something else..they would. Most of the UN's MP examples cite state reforms for the state..as in how the state itself interacts or the level of benevolence the state should bestow it's eager awaiting public servants. They speak of better trade through govt sanctioned trade agreements..which is all written down regulated and instructed... why not FREE trade? Or education..well I don't know what good education is going to do for nations like Morocco where extreme Islamic views still hold and females are not permitted to attend school regardless who is paying.
A lot of what fuels these conflicts and their violence and in the end perpetuates this extreme poverty, these nation's exclusion of the outside world and it's beliefs are their own religious beliefs or ethnic ignorance and state identity..much of which their gov. exploits.
Using Morocco again as an example why not demand they make a little political reform..such as allowing the people some role in their government? Again if the UN's MP is working with these selected governments and helping to better provide for the citizens by helping the government change wouldn't allowing the people to actually make political change be a good cause to rally?
I am just always bothered by the UN's belief that problems can and will always be solved by further governing ..further regulation..further restriction. When often the root of the problem is the very institution they wish to preserve.
QUOTE
How has the Sri Lankan govt been excused of committing violence against it's people? When did we all agree to forget this happened? How is the Sri Lankan govt's role and inaction thereafter not "allowing" her nation to rot in conflict and turmoil and ultimately extreme poverty? The only thing Sri Lanka will lack if she continues this violent existence will be people to blow up and massacre.
I donīt know how much knowledge about the conflict, to put it simple, its between two religious groups (as always), the Sinhala, which is a majoritiy of the people, also the ruling goverment, and Tamil, and they are conducting guerilla (LTTE) warfare against the Gov Troops.
And thats it... Its been going on for centuries. The goverment is (in my eyes) the īgoodī foolks. But i spoken to some Sri Lankans (actually Indians), and they had actually joined the LTTE, just because of the ethnic differences.
Itīs not as easy as you think. As always, i mean always, when it comes to religious fanatics (Christians, Muslism, you name it), they refuse to act civil, so it can be a hard time fixing it whitout eliminating the insurgents (they are the minority).
Bucket, actually, Morocco was a bad example, they have fairly good education, and the difference from you and I (ok ok ME, i donīt speak it, i canīt get the hang of it, i guess you do as your from Schweiz, non?), is that they also speak French, so quite a deal of them move to France and work there.
The entire Middle East is a good example on how bad it can be. Whiles UAE is a good example of how good it could be.
Gusten..
If you wish to speak about Sri Lanka in such detail it is best to start a new debate. Just a basic glance at that nation's violent history shows that they are equal partners.
Also Morocco has an illiteracy rate for females of over 60% and in fact over 80% in rural areas. My comments about education in Morocco were more bent towards gender inequality. And yes I did acknowledge it was complicated and that many of these conflicts are fueled by religious fanaticism or ethnic/national identities..I just also acknowledge that often the governments do not wish to truly end the violence and exploit it, engage in it too or just plain ignore it.
If you wish to speak about Sri Lanka in such detail it is best to start a new debate. Just a basic glance at that nation's violent history shows that they are equal partners.
Also Morocco has an illiteracy rate for females of over 60% and in fact over 80% in rural areas. My comments about education in Morocco were more bent towards gender inequality. And yes I did acknowledge it was complicated and that many of these conflicts are fueled by religious fanaticism or ethnic/national identities..I just also acknowledge that often the governments do not wish to truly end the violence and exploit it, engage in it too or just plain ignore it.
QUOTE(bucket @ Jan 23 2005, 11:45 PM)
Well Sri Lanka jumps right out at me (and MrsP)..because when I lived in Switzerland I learnt that being from Sri Lanka was a guaranteed acceptance into Switzerland as a political asylum seeker. The Tamil tigers ever heard of them? ..come on even in the US we hear of this nation's extremely violent conflict. How has the Sri Lankan govt been excused of committing violence against it's people? When did we all agree to forget this happened? How is the Sri Lankan govt's role and inaction thereafter not "allowing" her nation to rot in conflict and turmoil and ultimately extreme poverty? The only thing Sri Lanka will lack if she continues this violent existence will be people to blow up and massacre.
I've heard of the civil war in Sri Lanka, but I would point out that it is not the UN that says this country's government is worth dealing with. The list I posted a link to was from a group President Bush appointed to look into the "Millennium Challenge? idea.
I'm hardly an expert on the situation, but isn't it worth considering that perhaps the war is not the major cause of Sri Lanka's poverty?
I think it is simplistic to pin it all on that.
QUOTE
I could go nation by nation with that list and I would be surprised if I found one country's government that wasn't in some way allowing, permitting, encouraging or just plain ignoring very dire situations of violence within their nation because of their corrupt desires to rule.
I would invite you to.
Check out countries like Mozambique, which has been at relative peace for over a decade, still bitterly poor.
...or Mongolia, plenty of mineral resources, little infrastructure to exploit them.
... or Mali or Madagascar or Ghana
This assumption train that keeps us form understanding poverty more deeply has to end. It's not all due to war.
QUOTE
You act as if it is such a random thing ..something governments are inflicted with..not inflicting on their people. Poverty is not natural..it is not the natural state a human seeks and it is most often inflicted on them..by direct choice, policy or inaction of some kind of political body or source of authority.
Absolutely False.
Poverty is not what people seek, but it often finds them anyway. Most poor countries do not suffer from bad government.
Rather bad governments are formed by a poor, uneducated desperate populace.
QUOTE
Extreme poverty is a result of extreme conflict or violence and I can't think of any situation in the world where such violence has just randomly befallen a nation without any role or contribution from their government.
You mean besides the long history of exploitation and discrimination by European powers? It gave them no chance to keep up with the rest of the world in terms of agricultural or medical science.
QUOTE
They speak of better trade through govt sanctioned trade agreements..which is all written down regulated and instructed... why not FREE trade? Or education..well I don't know what good education is going to do for nations like Morocco where extreme Islamic views still hold and females are not permitted to attend school regardless who is paying.
Perhaps better educated young boys would be more in a position to realize the equality of their female counterparts. How did the US free itself form the illusions of male chauvinism except through advances in learning?
QUOTE
Using Morocco again as an example why not demand they make a little political reform..such as allowing the people some role in their government?
Actually under the program recipient countries are asked to make reforms.
Again, I would highly recommend a browsing through the site.
QUOTE
I am just always bothered by the UN's belief that problems can and will always be solved by further governing ..further regulation..further restriction. When often the root of the problem is the very institution they wish to preserve.
Careful governance and restriction are what made the West rich, chaos is the enemy of progress.
The same goes for our efforts to fight poverty. The project organizers realize that the "give as you will" plan isn't working. An organized focused effort should work much better.
Questions for Debate:
1. What do you think of the proposed global plan to end extreme poverty? Is it viable? The 'plan' as it currently envisioned, is working on the wrong end of the issue. Take a look at the stated goals...these require extensive buy-in from the target countries (do you think many of these countries are ready for gender equity...that would require a huge cultural shift which is simply impossible to achieve within the time frames stated). Until that is garnered, and those countries have specific plans in place, there isn't any need to worry about funding. Why fund non-existant plans?
I do think now would be an excellent time to move forward on such a plan..it ties in well with Bush's Freedom drive. Many of these goals are integral to achieving freedom (which justifies that statements that Bush's plan is far more liberal than it is conservative).
2. Can we (and the rest of the rich world) afford it?
Yes, but as with my stance on domestic programs, I think they should be viewed through a cost-benefit approach. Helping under-developed countries should produce tangible benefits, which could then be compared to the tangible costs. Programs done 'because we should' are, I think, destined to fail, because they won't be properly thought out (which is exactly the stage this one is currently in).
On the plus side, reducing poverty is essential in fighting the war on terror and increasing US (and world) security. People with nothing to lose are the very ones willing to sacrifice their lives fighting against their oppressors....reducing poverty will have a direct impact on improving world security. That alone probably justifies the cost...as long as real plans are put in place to achieve the goals.
3. Should we support it?
see above...it requires buy-in from the target countries, and much more concrete planning before we, or anyone else, should support it. However, the basic goals are worthwhile and justified, providing that they come within a properly managed plan to achieve them. Further, it would do wonders for our foreign relations for us to become very involved in such a program.
4. Does the American public have a false idea of how much we give to relief?
Probably...but I think so does the rest of the world. The figures I have seen on this are fairly restrictive in their definition, leaving out much of what we spend. However, much of the funding that is missed is targeted at certain countries for political reasons, and therefore open to criticism. I think it would be beneficial for Americans to have a better idea of where the government spends all of its money...foreign aid just being a small part of that.
1. What do you think of the proposed global plan to end extreme poverty? Is it viable? The 'plan' as it currently envisioned, is working on the wrong end of the issue. Take a look at the stated goals...these require extensive buy-in from the target countries (do you think many of these countries are ready for gender equity...that would require a huge cultural shift which is simply impossible to achieve within the time frames stated). Until that is garnered, and those countries have specific plans in place, there isn't any need to worry about funding. Why fund non-existant plans?
I do think now would be an excellent time to move forward on such a plan..it ties in well with Bush's Freedom drive. Many of these goals are integral to achieving freedom (which justifies that statements that Bush's plan is far more liberal than it is conservative).
2. Can we (and the rest of the rich world) afford it?
Yes, but as with my stance on domestic programs, I think they should be viewed through a cost-benefit approach. Helping under-developed countries should produce tangible benefits, which could then be compared to the tangible costs. Programs done 'because we should' are, I think, destined to fail, because they won't be properly thought out (which is exactly the stage this one is currently in).
On the plus side, reducing poverty is essential in fighting the war on terror and increasing US (and world) security. People with nothing to lose are the very ones willing to sacrifice their lives fighting against their oppressors....reducing poverty will have a direct impact on improving world security. That alone probably justifies the cost...as long as real plans are put in place to achieve the goals.
3. Should we support it?
see above...it requires buy-in from the target countries, and much more concrete planning before we, or anyone else, should support it. However, the basic goals are worthwhile and justified, providing that they come within a properly managed plan to achieve them. Further, it would do wonders for our foreign relations for us to become very involved in such a program.
4. Does the American public have a false idea of how much we give to relief?
Probably...but I think so does the rest of the world. The figures I have seen on this are fairly restrictive in their definition, leaving out much of what we spend. However, much of the funding that is missed is targeted at certain countries for political reasons, and therefore open to criticism. I think it would be beneficial for Americans to have a better idea of where the government spends all of its money...foreign aid just being a small part of that.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jan 24 2005, 11:33 AM)
The 'plan' as it currently envisioned, is working on the wrong end of the issue. Take a look at the stated goals...these require extensive buy-in from the target countries (do you think many of these countries are ready for gender equity...that would require a huge cultural shift which is simply impossible to achieve within the time frames stated). Until that is garnered, and those countries have specific plans in place, there isn't any need to worry about funding. Why fund non-existant plans?
Not quite true...
The organizers have identified a number of "Quick Win" projects that require minimal involvement for recipient countries. These could save millions of live (the mosquito nets for malaria for instance) and could function as confidence building measures.
Quick Wins(PDF)
I think we should be very wary of falling into the "you first" trap. I learned that didn't work by age five.
We must realize that it is the recipient countries who face the toughest tasks. Our sacrifice will be almost negligible by comparison. As better governed countries we can and should take the first steps.
QUOTE
On the plus side, reducing poverty is essential in fighting the war on terror and increasing US (and world) security. People with nothing to lose are the very ones willing to sacrifice their lives fighting against their oppressors....reducing poverty will have a direct impact on improving world security. That alone probably justifies the cost...as long as real plans are put in place to achieve the goals.
The Millennium Project has been in planning for years, they aren't walking blind here.
The Millennium Project has been in planning for years, they aren't walking blind here.
What aspects of "concrete planning" are you looking for in particular? I would wager they are available in the tons of information the commissions have collected.
I could probably find them if you'd like. I agree that the enormous payoff of ending extreme poverty should not be ignored. Even besides security costs, think the of unsaturated markets open to Western goods...
to say nothing of a cleaner conscience.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jan 22 2005, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE
In an important recent policy initiative, the U.S. government established a set of transparent indicators that identifies poor but reasonably well governed countries that can qualify for funding from its new Millennium Challenge Account. The list of 30 countries includes Bolivia, Ghana, Mali, and Mozambique. Despite significant efforts and real progress, these countries, and many like them, pass the governance test but still fail to make adequate progress toward the Goals.
Why the Goals are important
The others aren't likely to sit and watch there neighbors develop. Not all of Africa is plagued by civil war. Most of it is simply crippled by poverty.
Table 2 in the link you provided is telling. The link states that overall incomes increased by approximately 21 percent, the number of people in extreme poverty declined by an estimated 130 million, ect. The table shows that all of these accomplishments happened in parts of Asia. Poverty elsewhere actually increased incrementally. Either this is coincidence, foreign government assistance went only to Asia, or privatized foreign direct investment was much more influential than the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and ODA assistance.
I agree that the best means to improve conditions within impoverished countries is to apply pressure aimed at improving the human rights of their people. That seems to be the overall objective of the Millennium project. I disagree that increased public funding to the stated goal is necessary or even prudent, until those conditions are met. As I mentioned before, our private contributions vastly exceed our public (PDF here: faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/acbrooks/The Privatization of Foreign Aid.pdf ). Public funding and private funding seem to have an inverse relationship when you compare countries with higher ODA payments. If those contributions are compromised (through higher taxes), Id say its an inefficient method for meeting those goals. Private contributions pay for malarial mosquito nets and education, too.
The memory of Somalia is pretty fresh in my mind. Generous foreign aid, in that case, actually created tempting new targets for looting and fed the cycle of violence. Somalias warlords attempted to exact as much political advantage for themselves as possible, and siphoned off large amounts of cash from the nation builders in Mogadishu. Relief workers, reconstruction experts, and UN personnel were all charged exorbitant rent to live and work in properties controlled by the warlords. The hired local drivers, translators, and office personnel were usually affiliated with the area clans and paid part of their earnings to the local warlord. On many occasions, factional skirmishes occurred over the spoils of nation building, not clan politics. Somalias warlords then used the (UN generated) cash to buy more guns and ammunition.
Lets not do that again.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jan 24 2005, 12:13 PM)
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jan 24 2005, 11:33 AM)
The 'plan' as it currently envisioned, is working on the wrong end of the issue. Take a look at the stated goals...these require extensive buy-in from the target countries (do you think many of these countries are ready for gender equity...that would require a huge cultural shift which is simply impossible to achieve within the time frames stated). Until that is garnered, and those countries have specific plans in place, there isn't any need to worry about funding. Why fund non-existant plans?
Not quite true...
The organizers have identified a number of "Quick Win" projects that require minimal involvement for recipient countries. These could save millions of live (the mosquito nets for malaria for instance) and could function as confidence building measures.
Quick Wins(PDF)
I have no problems with this, and think such quick wins are prudent first steps. However, then the overall timetable needs to adjusted. They are looking at implementing the full scale projects in the target countries within the next couple of years....that is simply not feasible. It would take longer than that just to get the quick wins enacted, the results verified, and get buy-in from recipient countries on the bigger goals.
QUOTE
I think we should be very wary of falling into the "you first" trap. I learned that didn't work by age five.
...while I think we should be wary of falling into the "I know what's best for you, and am going to force you to behave according to my model" trap. If these countries don't buy-in to these programs, they are not only doomed to fail, but they will make many other problems worse. Just consider the impact of our telling other countries (again) how to live their lives, and the likely impact that will have on those that already teter towards support terrorist attacks against us. It's not a good scenario.
QUOTE
We must realize that it is the recipient countries who face the toughest tasks. Our sacrifice will be almost negligible by comparison. As better governed countries we can and should take the first steps.
Right on the first part...which is exactly why buy-in from these countries is necessary. As for first steps...what exactly are you describing? We can't enact any of these programs in other countries without their buy-in. Therefore, that has to come first.
QUOTE
What aspects of "concrete planning" are you looking for in particular? I would wager they are available in the tons of information the commissions have collected.
Planning that actually involved the recipient countries. All the commission can do is lay out templates...filling in the details would require the involvement, and buy-in, of the recipient countries. Basically, this strikes me as a very good idea, which is currently in the 'high level' phase. As with all projects, the devil is in the details...and I don't think the details have even been addressed. Basically, it seems like this is a good attempt at defining what to do....but with each country detailed plans would need to be defined on how to actually do it. These would be different for each country...getting back to the need for their buy-in.
So, my stance is not that this is a bad idea...just that it seems that much more work is needed before its ready to implement, at least in its full scope. But by no means should this prevent us from proceeding.
QUOTE
I'm hardly an expert on the situation, but isn't it worth considering that perhaps the war is not the major cause of Sri Lanka's poverty?
And perhaps it is. ? There is obviously a great brain drain from that nation..in fact I would imagine there is just a drain on the workforce as a whole what with a net migration in the negatives. You think this might effect it adversely and hamper it's progress? And exactly how will they attract foreign investment when the govt does not have total control of the region..war is raging..how could this not be a major component of this nation's economic troubles?
QUOTE
I would invite you to.
Check out countries like Mozambique, which has been at relative peace for over a decade, still bitterly poor.
...or Mongolia, plenty of mineral resources, little infrastructure to exploit them.
... or Mali or Madagascar or Ghana
This assumption train that keeps us form understanding poverty more deeply has to end. It's not all due to war.
Check out countries like Mozambique, which has been at relative peace for over a decade, still bitterly poor.
...or Mongolia, plenty of mineral resources, little infrastructure to exploit them.
... or Mali or Madagascar or Ghana
This assumption train that keeps us form understanding poverty more deeply has to end. It's not all due to war.
I was really hoping I would not have to and I guess I have to point this out too altho I took precaution to assure I that I never claimed it is all due to war..I said violence and I am pretty sure each time I defined or cited conflict I followed it with..or violence..to always keep site of the fact I feel war in itself is not the only factor as it is not the only form of violence.
Mozambique is one of the most notorious foreign aid corrupters..you read any anti-foreign aid argument and you will find Mozambique being used as the most alarming example. And a single decade worth of peace is still no match to nearly two decade worth of war...2 million said to be dead..a land riddled with land mines and left with a population of amputees..you know people are an important resource for a nation too and Mozambique undoubtedly is still suffering from her violent past.
There is gender violence to consider too which still rages in not just this country but many of the ones you have listed..I know this kind of violence never gets the attention that ethnic or political violence does..but nonetheless I feel it is equally damaging to society. That is why I mentioned it in my last post (regarding Morocco) as I feel this is as extreme a violence as any other.
Mongolia..again gender violence and it is said to be one of the worst in the world. I just don't understand how having half of your population kept in such violent and abusive situations and given little if not any rights or protections within the government will help further your nation's progress. Isn't this a corrupt stance the govt is taking?
Ghana again a notoriously corrupt government and I would imagine prevalent gender violence.
Do I have to go on?
And just to put your plenty of resources theory to test..if the nation's themselves are so rich in resources then why do they remain so poor? Do you think that government corruption that is so extensive and so prevalent could be a cause? I like how in ohh say Mozambique..the newly elected president is always described as...a wealthy businessman Wealthy? Where did he get his wealth? If poverty has so infected his nation how did he remain immune? Oh and his big campaign promise was to help rid the government of corruption. Which happens to be the most common theme amongst these nation's elections.
Also on the resource note you follow economic news? Most of these nations have been suffering because their economies or so heavily dependent on their few exports..and unfortunately their many imports..that they have very little room to maneuver during economic fluctuations. Take example the recent crash in the coffee market..it devastated many of these nations and this happens to be where another REAL connection to poverty is in these countries. You have any idea how large a cash crop coffee is? It comes second only to oil and who loves this stuff? We do..the western nations..much like we love their sugar, their diamonds, their cocoa, their gold....how can we say they are poor!? What rubbish. They are not poor...we just devalue them..plain and simple.
Fair open and free trade would be a good start...rather than just further pushes for regulated trade and protectionism and other agreements between corrupted government bodies. You think all the coffee drinking nations are going to let their government subsidies go? Or is it best for us to just keep these nation's devalued and make up for it with a monthly welfare check?
QUOTE
Poverty is not what people seek, but it often finds them anyway. Most poor countries do not suffer from bad government.
What proof do you have of this? How is a government who refuses to recognize half it's populace as even being human enough to warrant protection of their basic human rights good? How are they not bad? Also corruption is a massive problem in these nations..I just don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge this. We have some very significant examples of this to look to in our not so distant past..we will never be able to help these nations if we refuse to even admit what ails them.
QUOTE
You mean besides the long history of exploitation and discrimination by European powers? It gave them no chance to keep up with the rest of the world in terms of agricultural or medical science.
What a bizarre comment to make when you spent the first part of your post claiming that war, conflict and extreme violence which all of the nations you have listed have suffered at their own hands and continue to suffer somehow have no role in their current state but what happened under the European hand does...perhaps you can explain the reasoning behind this?
And just to reiterate what I said previously...Zimbabwe under European rule was the bread basket of Africa..the only thing the Europeans unquestionably did implement in those nations was agriculture. That was why they were there to begin with. You know what has happened to those great farms in Zimbabwe since then? They have been used as a tool for Mugagbe's reign of fear on his nation..they have been destroyed..they produce nothing..they just house the drunken vets who are paid to sit on them..and act like it was part of a successful governemnt reclamation project.
QUOTE
Perhaps better educated young boys would be more in a position to realize the equality of their female counterparts. How did the US free itself form the illusions of male chauvinism except through advances in learning?
You think that is what they are going to teach them in school? You think even if they did try to attempt to teach this..by only saying it..obviously not practicing it because you claim this is a lesson one could learn even if females are still being subjugated and excluded from education..even so how would it be reinforced at home when they see the females in their family being beaten..even murdered and it is not a crime? How will it be reinforced when they go to church or they go out to work or they socialize and again females are always kept at a lower standing?
QUOTE
Careful governance and restriction are what made the West rich, chaos is the enemy of progress.
I disagree obviously their chaos and their inability to govern themselves has made us rich too.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.