Surely you need tot take into account the state of the economies holding those debts? America is far far richer than any African state, so can afford to have larger debts.

To somewhat simplify the argument, a man who makes a million dollars a year can afford to be in debt to the tune of 100,000 dollars and pay only the interest, should he so choose. A man who only makes 20,000 dollars a year would find a debt of that size to be a far larger burden.

Actually, the amount of this debt that is foreign held has been increasing dramatically, and is currently at about $2 trillion. This is alarming at present, and, if present trends continue, the majority of this debt will be foreign held in the near future.



This is true, but your analogy disregards the real size of the US debt load. In fact, the US debt is in about the same ratio as that which you portray for the lower income person here. US Federal debt is currently about $7.78 trillion (and growing), and the annual government budget is about $2 trillion.

There is a wealth of (scary) information on US debt levels here. Of particular interest here is the total debt carried in the US....some $40 trillion (combining Federal, State, Business, and personal debt). Again, this goes to show that we are in fact the world's largest debtor nation, and by a huge margin. Not just in total, but also relative to our income. To put it in perspective, this is several times our GDP. Which may just go to show that acquiring debt is indeed the solution, begging the question...if we can afford these debt levels, why can't Africa (again, I am speaking relatively, not just in pure dollar amounts)? It further brings up the question of, since we are already in hock up to..and past...our eyeballs, what business do we have giving money away. The only answer to this would have to be that we get more out of it than we would put in..ie, it would be an investment, with a profitable return. Is it?

To also demonstrate the real decision being asked here...the above link shows that the per person amount of the federal debt is about $25,000. What is being asked, then, is that each of us, already faced with that debt, then contribute 1% of our income to fund this initiative. Calculate this amount for your situation, and then ask yourself...would you write an annual check for that amount for this cause? If not, then you have decided we shouldn't do it.

How near? About ten years by estimates I see and that assumes the current deficit doesn't shrink, which I think is kind of silly considering Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism all situation that have a good chance of slowing down over that time.

Foreign debt is less than a third of the total debt (it was less than 1.5 trillion as of 2001 according to the CIA World Factbook) and not set for any sudden shift. In any case let's not fool ourselves... it is not because of need to pay down interest on debt that the US has refused to live up to its commitments.

Our external debt service relative to our GDP is microscopic. The worst-case projections for ten years down the road puts it at less than 2% of GDP.

Now it's less than half of a percent.

In many impoverished nations, on the other hand, it could be the difference between life and deaths for tens of thousands.



Most American's can (and do) blow more than 1% of their incomes on movies and junk food. If we count foreign debt (the kind that actually leaves our economy) that proportion is more like $5,500 per person, if we only count what we actually pay on the debt (debt service) I'm not sure we could cut pennies into small enough portions to get an idea.

While we're begging questions we could ask why the largest consistent proportions of our foreign aid is going to Israel, Egypt and Jordan? Why only 30% goes to the most impoverished nations?

What we are seeing now are smokescreen tactics, Americans are not faced with the burden of paying off the debt, we all know that's not going to happen. Nor does it really need to since most of it is simply internal savings bonds that aren't going to be cashed in on a large scale.

Arguing that the US is in worse financial shape than Ethiopia is not going to aid to your credibility.

Living up to our big talk is not going to lower the standard of living appreciably for any single American.

0.7% is just what is sounds like. Countries is far worse economic shape such as Germany and France have already starting on the road to living up to the target.

It is not prudence that motivates US failure to do so.

This is avoiding the question. The issue isn't whether or not most Americans could afford it (they could)...they question is whether or not they would actually write the check. Most wouldn't, IMHO...indicating that most would not support this program (as they wouldn't support most government programs if faced directly with the actual cost). Which gets us back to personal justification...what does the US (and those really paying for the program) get out of this?



Because the impoverished nations don't have anything to offer us. Being impoverished nations, they have little effect on other's economies, policies, strategies, etc. In short, from an quantitative viewpoint, they're inconsequential. Same reason it is difficult to get funding for the homeless domestically. (I'm not saying I agree with this viewpoint...just explaining that it is what it is).



I'm not arguing that (although I could )...all I'm stating is that we are in bad enough financial straights that any spending we make needs to be justified. If it doesn't provide a return greater than its expense, that's difficult to do. Providing that justification is probably quite possible....but that's not usually the tack taken. In short, don't tell me what the benefit is to the recipients...tell me what the benefit is to the providers: they're the ones who need to be convinced.



Really? Then it shouldn't be a problem to get all American to voluntarily contribute, bypassing the need for government funding. Why not go that route? The only real answer is that because it is known that most would not contribute...thereby indicating their lack of support for the program.

0.7% is just what is sounds like. Countries is far worse economic shape such as Germany and France have already starting on the road to living up to the target.



Actually, it is indeed just that. Prudence would indicate that projects with better returns be funded first. Since that is not being done, it is probably precisely because that return has not been sufficiently demonstrated...making it only prudent to withhold the funding. You might argue that it is also callous, greedy, and inhumane...but that doesn't make it less prudent.

I should note that I am not against such programs. I just think those seeking its funding are taking the wrong path to getting it (and also getting on my usual reduce government spending soapbox, which I naturally carry with me at all times ).

You have just explained why the "free market" cannot solve this problem...

One could argue the benefits of increased security in the region and the economic resource potential of these nations is more than enough, but that is uncertain.

I reject a purely-self centered approach to this (or any) situation out of hand. One would hope that as civilized nations we've moved beyond that. Our leaders certainly talk as if we have.

If we're going to wait for the government to see the value in saving the lives of millions of Africans we have a long wait.

I appeal for the sake of the recipients because ultimately it is only pity that can drive these programs. You can swear up and down it will benefit the US all you want, politicians are only going to see vote tallies and dollar signs that don't add up.




Lack of support is not the same as lack of ability. People would refuse to support such a program even if it wouldn't affect their standard of living (and it won't) it's pure selfish reflex.

It is the impersonal nature of government that makes it the best choice for the plan. Many people are lazy and stingy a government at least has to pretend to be benevolent on occasion, because (ironically) people expect it to be.

In polls the majority of Americans support governmental foreign aid. A a matter of fact American's seem to support a whole lot of foreign aid is some recent polls about 10% of the federal budget. Boy were they wrong.

Americans on Foreign Aid and World Hunger



I argue that prudence does not really enter consideration, if it was we would be fighting spending in more consequential areas. If prudence were the point it would be applied universally.

The problem is not prudence it's runaway conservative ideology.

Hobbes you probably have realized by now I'm not one to engage is political bashing without very good reason.

Right now we have what is likely the best reason in history, this nonsense is costing millions of live yearly.

The real reason is the knee-jerk responses whenever a bold plan is proposed.

Until people in the US can understand the the line "aid doesn't work" is bunk and realize that the goal of ending extreme poverty is within reach we're stuck.

We have watched aid work, we have seen poverty ended and any focused plan is better than the hodge-podge off half-hearted stopgap programs we have now. We have seen people much worse off than us do far better.

If you want to reduce government spending, try starting with something that takes up more than 1% of the budget.

Private funding is not enough, that's why the IMF and World Bank were stablished after WWII.

It seems the west can support foreign aid when they are the ones being aided.

One could hope this could be a true answer to the fifth question, on the dedication of soon-to-be new World Bank Head Paul Wolfowitz to the cause of economic development.

Here's a little known press feed...

Economic development key to ending tyranny - US' Wolfowitz

I found only two sources covering this statement and one was in India.

Reduced budget, reduced press coverage. I wonder if when a well connected Paul Wolfowitz notices the short shift given to development aid and those who works with it he'll change some things...

We can only hope.

Economy key weapon in war on tyrannies: Wolfowitz

Should the US fulfill its promises made back in 1970 and reaffirmed in the Monterey conference in 2002 to raise Foreign aid to 0.7% of National Income?

Only if the 'aid' will not go to US friendly dictators who need help with the fatal pacification of their citizens.

How can donors be encouraged to fulfil pledges?

No pledge need be made, just let them donate cash and goods on the nail. The actual action, not the pledge, should carry the weight.

Should the US (and other nations) cancel the debt of impoverished African nations?

Odious debt worldwide should be cancelled as a matter of course. Automatically and every time it is incurred.

Odious Debt


Is the US policy on international policy reduction a good one?

I'm terrible at math, higher economics is beyond me. So I don't see money as figures to be handed here and there, I see money as a symbol for resources and labor. Therefore, since America imports more than it exports and (along with many other industrialized nations) often gets cheap resources and labor from impoverished nations (in other words, takes more than it gives), I don't see this pledge as very useful unless the underlying reality is addressed. America and other wealthy nations certainly can't assist the peoples of poorer countries by providing a larger percentage of their GDP while at the same time overthrowing officials in these countries who are attempting to spread resources to a larger number of people by charging the US and US-backed corporate interests more for resources and services!

Will Wolfowitz encourage commitment to aid pledges as head of the World Bank

Wolfowitz will encourage commitment to aid pledges only when the nation that will benefit has a US ally ruling it.

This sentiment is, I'm afraid, symptomatic of the fundamental problem with foreign aid today.

It is a process-oriented approach which is doomed to failure.

The US and the World needs a goal-oriented approach to global poverty.

"Give as you will" won't cut it. The concept places focus of the donors and all but ignores the real issues faced by recipient nations.

The goal should be to make future aid unnecessary, to give poor nations the ability to stand on their own economic strength, the end extreme poverty not merely to be charitable but practical as well.

For a goal-oriented approach you need a plan, part of that plan must include funding for which you need pledges.

Without striking a deal on paper we have a disorganized mess of a policy.

I agree completely! Now, if I could get you to please contact my lenders regarding this, I would be much obliged. Somehow, I suspect they may have a different perspective on this.

I would also wonder what incentive lenders would then have to provide further loans, knowing in advance that they could just be cancelled as a matter of course? Wouldn't it then behoove the borrowers to simply borrow as much as possible, so as to ensure that the amount was 'odious', and could then be excused? The net impact of this would be less money available to needy countries, since lenders would be unwilling to make any further loans...I'm not sure that's the solution to the problem you want.

I guess this brings up another aspect of this discussion....why aren't loans sufficient for providing the needed money? It would seem that the goal is economic improvement in these countries. As such, there should be an ability to repay a loan. If there isn't such ability...it means the policies were unsuccessful, doesn't it? Which would further mean that the same money, provided through foreign aid, would also be wasted, as it would not have achieved its goal. Granted, requiring loan repayment would lessen the economic impact on the host country...but it would also remove the liability (and associated need to collect) from the donor countries. As I have said in previous posts...what is the expected economic impact on the donor countries? If that is also positive (and if it isn't....it probably explains the reluctance to contribute)...then the donor countries should also be willing to sign up for the loan, as it economically benefits them to do so. Sooo....there really isn't a need for any country to donate any money at all, is there? Loans should be sufficient in any case...if they're not, it's because of a problem with the plan to start with.

According to the definition provided the term odious does not refer to the amount, but to the purpose and nature of the loan.

Odious debt
If this means leanders no longer have incentive to loan money to dictators for their palaces...

I think that's a risk we're all willing to take.





First I'll say it again goal-oriented. The last thing impoverished nations need is more debt service. Loans have a nasty tendency of building interest until it outstrips one's ability to pay. Even the US suffers from this problem. Our saving grace it that we owe most of this interest to ourselves...

Even a successful plan will take years. The Millennium Project's target is the end of extreme poverty by 2025, two decades from now. That's a lot of interest for countries just getting a foothold in the global market.

Secondly, much of the aid need not be funneled through recipient governments. Direct projects are faster and better managed. I reference the Kabul-Kandahar road as a prominent example.

Loans may well be sufficient, but donations would be better by a long shot.

Should the US fulfill its promises made back in 1970 and reaffirmed in the Monterey conference in 2002 to raise Foreign aid to 0.7% of National Income?

Yes. Its nothing to us, and it could do the rest of the world a lot of good.

How can donors be encouraged to fulfil pledges?

By putting leaders who are supportive of the pledges, into power. (presumably by donors, you mean donor countries).

Should the US (and other nations) cancel the debt of impoverished African nations?

Well lets look at this carefully. If we cancel all the debt, then money loaners will no longer loan money to these countries, because loans are only profitable, if they are payed back. Without to ability to take out loans, many countries no longer be to obtain critical resources, such as oil and food. Canceling the debt would just be to replace one problem, with another (perhaps worse) problem. The only permanent solution to this, would be for the countries in debt, to get wealthy enough to get out of debt on their own accord.

Is the US policy on international policy [you mean poverty] reduction a good one?

Well poverty still exists in massive quantities, so obviously what were doing now isn't enough.

Will Wolfowitz encourage commitment to aid pledges as head of the World Bank?

Economies are purely about profit, and when profit is the sole goal of an organization, people inevitably get run over. A world with less poverty, would be a world that is much less profitable, because businesses would no longer be able to benefit from cheap labour.

Overall, the worlds wealthiest countries (with exception of Japan) are all either European, or of European descent. We (in America) are still coasting off of a head start that began 300 years ago. Capitalism serves the consumer, and oppresses the worker, and it may be the unfortunate natural order of globalization, that some countries (like the US) are going to be consumers, and some (like China) are going to be workers. While Capitalism is essential in order to propagate productivity, it must be restrained to a certain extent by the government, so that it does completely screw the people. Unfortunately, governments generally only do this for their own people. Which in turn means the only solution is a world government, in which the government cares about all of humanity, rather then the people of just one nationality (which is never going to happen...which why I hate nationalism), or a world in which all nations are selfless (which is against human nature). Basically, the worlds screwed and that isn't going to be change.

That is a very common misconception which probably grows from the very harsh connotation that bankruptcy has in our culture.

It is wrong on a number of fronts.

1. The argument that canceling the debt would signal to lenders that an impoverished country is an unsafe investment isn't particularly well thought out.

After all, I think it is abundantly clear to investors that places like Mozambique and Ethiopia are not profitable places to lend to anyway

These loans are largely decades old and owed to wealthy countries who would hardly miss whatever meager water they could squeeze from the rocks that are the poor world.

2. Canceling unpayable debt is a tried and true economic strategy and the refusal to do so has often had dire consequences.

After WWI Germany was saddled with load of unpayable debts for property loss during the war.

Although many economists advised that these debts be canceled because Germany was unable to pay anger cause them to be ignored.

The results?

World War II

When people have nothing to lose they do some pretty dangerous things. Osama Bin Laden spent years in Sudan and the horn of Africa is a haven for Al-Qaeda.

After the second "war to end all wars" the West temporarily learned its lesson and cancelled the debts. The result?

Germany, once bankrupt, is the heart of Europe's economy.

Debt cancellation worked in Poland and Bolivia as well.

3. African countries do not live off these old loans, they are now simply a burden to countries that can't support the load. The loans are a hurdle that prevent poor countries to develop the infrastructure that would lead to wealth



Another common misconception. However even wage controlled economies like France are relatively profitable.

Cheap labor will still be available is a world not burdened by extreme poverty. There will always be those who tends towards manual labor. In fact extreme poverty weakens the labor force due to disease, malnourishment, etc.



Another...

Well you get the picture

The wealthy world is not coasting off of anything (if they were growth would be slowing, is many countries it's constant or even speeding up).

We certainly aren't getting wealthy at the expense of poor nations (well some of us are but not in general).

There is not a constant amount of money in the world. Rather than taking bigger pieces the rich economies are making the pie bigger. Constant innovation is the key here.



China is the fastest growing economy in the world with a rapidly expanding middle class. China is poised to become a technological and manufacturing leader in the world. African nations have similar potential.




History (and the present) is full of examples to the contrary. We know how to engender growth, we just need to do so.

[I]1. The argument that canceling the debt would signal to lenders that an impoverished country is an unsafe investment isn't particularly well thought out.

After all, I think it is abundantly clear to investors that places like Mozambique and Ethiopia are not profitable places to lend to anyway

These loans are largely decades old and owed to wealthy countries who would hardly miss whatever meager water they could squeeze from the rocks that are the poor world.

Investors profit off interest rates, because eventually they accumulate to the point were the amount of paid interest exceeds the amount loaned in the first place. If debt is cancelled, investors cease to collect their interest rates, and as a result the investments stop yielding a profit. Thus if debt is cancelled, loans will no longer be given out.

2. Canceling unpayable debt is a tried and true economic strategy and the refusal to do so has often had dire consequences.

After WWI Germany was saddled with load of unpayable debts for property loss during the war.

Although many economists advised that these debts be canceled because Germany was unable to pay anger cause them to be ignored.

The results?

World War II

When people have nothing to lose they do some pretty dangerous things. Osama Bin Laden spent years in Sudan and the horn of Africa is a haven for Al-Qaeda.

After the second "war to end all wars" the West temporarily learned its lesson and cancelled the debts. The result?

Germany, once bankrupt, is the heart of Europe's economy.

Debt cancellation worked in Poland and Bolivia as well.

When i'm talking about debt, i'm talking about debt given by private individuals, who (being bound by capitalism) are soley concerned with churning out a profit. If were talking about debt owed to governments (who aren't concerned about profit) , then by all means cancel it.

3. African countries do not live off these old loans, they are now simply a burden to countries that can't support the load. The loans are a hurdle that prevent poor countries to develop the infrastructure that would lead to wealth

But if private debts are cancelled, then private organizations will stop giving out loans. Without loans how can things like food be bought? Instead of cancelling this debt, why don't we just have our government pay it off for them?

Another common misconception. However even wage controlled economies like France are relatively profitable.

Right, society can be profitable without rockbottom cheap labour, just not as profitable.

Cheap labor will still be available is a world not burdened by extreme poverty. There will always be those who tends towards manual labor. In fact extreme poverty weakens the labor force due to disease, malnourishment, etc.

If none of the world was poor, then the exchange rate would making the cost of living go up across the board, and consequently labour would get more expensive. On top of this, if none of the world was poor, then the worker might become more of a consumer then a product. This would in turn mean that employers would have to treat them decently, which would also make labour more expensive.

Another...

Well you get the picture

The wealthy world is not coasting off of anything (if they were growth would be slowing, is many countries it's constant or even speeding up).

We certainly aren't getting wealthy at the expense of poor nations (well some of us are but not in general).

There is not a constant amount of money in the world. Rather than taking bigger pieces the rich economies are making the pie bigger. Constant innovation is the key here.

We are prosperous, because we are the owners. We own the means production in other countries, and we export their produce and profits to our own shores. Even so, we have to pay natives of other countries a little for their labour, so as a result our trade deficit is terrible. And for reasons I wont, and quite frankly cant explain, this is offset by our dollar.

China is the fastest growing economy in the world with a rapidly expanding middle class. China is poised to become a technological and manufacturing leader in the world. African nations have similar potential.

You'll notice that virtually everything we have, has a Made in China label on it. This in turn means, that almost everything we have was created in a Chinese Sweatshop. Factory owners might make a fair amount of money, but the workers are virtual slaves. China is ideal for labour exploitation because its authoritarian government has baned all unions, and being a country of over a billion, its population (and consequently its working potential) is huge. The reason why China is getting rich, is that it is the worlds biggest host to industrial production. In essence this ensures that its trade deficit surplus is enormous. However, for every middle class person China supports, there is going be at least 50 lower class people holding him up. As a result, China is a working nation, not a consuming nation.

History (and the present) is full of examples to the contrary. We know how to engender growth, we just need to do so.

Two things are needed for a prosperous economic society. One is wealth, and the other is wealth distribution. Libertarianism ensures lots of wealth creation, but it also ensures that the wealth settles in a small upper class. Socialism on the other hand, provides equal distribution, but this is realitivly useless, because it is at the expense of virtually all wealth creation (what goods wealth distribution, if there is nothing to distribute?). Thus neither libertarianism, nor socialism is a good way to run an economy. What is good is a hybrid of both ideals (like we have here in the United States). The trouble is, governments (no matter how socialist) only care about wealth distribution in their own national borders, and they are indifferent to it in a global sense. This is why we need a world government.

Well that is largely what we are talking about. Debts owed to Central Banks of wealthy nations.

That said governments are, of course, interested in revenue.


About $200 billion... not going to happen.

...and again poor nations are not buying food with loans. Most of these loans date back to the 70's. They money they afforded in long gone now and there are no new loans forthcoming to worry about endangering.



This happened in nearly all of the developing economies, yet it has not prevented growth. Countries like Japan have found that there is more money to be made from the rich than the poor.

Japan didn't even import cheap labour. Skilled workers can easily make up for lost unskilled workers.

The nature of technology is that the sphere of unskilled labor is forever shrinking.

The United States is the largest exporter in the world. We make most of our money from exporting our own goods not someone else's.

The trade deficit is not caused by the US paying foreign workers (that doesn't even figure into the calculation of a trade deficit).

The trade deficit is caused by the US buying foreign manufactured goods sold by foreign companies. Speaking of which....


Not exactly true...

We do import a lot from China and they do pay workers much less than we do.

...but China's low cost textiles are merely the underpinning of an economy that is swiftly diversifying. China has recognized that there is money to be made in textiles..;. but even more to be made in industry and technology.

As a result poverty is on the decline in China, and fast.


China is swiftly becoming both, just as the US has been for decades. We complain about "made in China" many other countries complain about "made in America"

Our nation is both the greatest importer and expoorter in the world. Both are essential to our wealth.


False.

Like I said history shows otherwise. Poland struggled out of communism impoverished and broken. Foreign aid and debt cancellation has made it a swiftly growing member of the EU.

Governments can be made to care about other countries as long as they understand that growth in Africa means a gargantuan new market for US goods...

The nature of technology is that the sphere of skilled, cheap labor is forever growing, however. Which cuts into the standard of living in wealthy nations, without allowing the poor nations to rise to equality, thereby ending slave labor. When India gets to expensive, the tech jobs will go to China, when China's labor is too costly, it will go to Africa, and so on. And then (here is the part the freemarketers miss), it will go back to the nations it left, because their economies will have deflated, leaving people worse off than before (their nonrenewable resources will be taken locally, too, where available).

What you said was true of Japan...once. Before Japan's competitors caught up. Japan could eschew cheap labor only when its products dominated a single niche. Japan now exports much of its manufacturing, and its economy has suffered, too. Why? Because Korea can make cars, and Taiwan can make TVs, and China can make radios. All cheaper than Japan can. That might be tolerable, if it weren't for European and American corporations who take advantage of the cheap labor. Japanese companies must now compete with global conglomerates in the 'race to the bottom'. And Japan has apparantly lost or is rapidly losing the innovative thrust of its culture, the only thing that will allow it to shun outsourcing now is to regain that creativity. That goes for America, too, and every wealthy nation, unless we all shun the race to the bottom instead.

Here are some stats on Japan's outsourcing of IT jobs:

http://www.outsourcing-offshore.com/itjobs.html





I have a question on export stats:

Do they include US corporations that cause goods to be made in, for example, China, then sell them in Europe? Are those considered US 'exports', even if the only Americans making a living from them are in the US-based corporate office?




Not exactly sustainable though, is it? If the US continues to consume just as much fossil energy as we do now, while India and China increase that use, who is going to be hit with an energy crisis as demand exceeds output (and it will, very soon now, if something doesn't change). Also, if China's workers start commanding a higher wage, many multinationals will look elsewhere for their labor, flattening out or collapsing China's economy well before it reaches our level.







I disagree. If corporations had reason to keep Poland's people under Communist dictatorship (as United Fruit did to keep Guatemalans under dictators, and many corporations have to replace Chavez with a dictator who will stop charging fair prices for goods and services), then Poland would have never had the opportunity to struggle up from nothing. It would have remained in poverty.

Hence, the refusal to enforce odious debt. That might discourage companies and governments from lending and investing in dictators, even though dictatorships, from a business perspective, are paradises of stabillity (give or take a death squad squashed peasant uprising and a dead nun or two) and productivity (give or take an executed union leader or two and a handful of billyclubbed striking workers).


You accused me of not offering solutions, but refusing to force repayment of odious debt is one, and the other is to not allow goods made by slave labor into our nation. Also, we have to stop consuming so much. We must regain our creativity and come up with alternative energy sources and the infrastructure to apply them, as well as protect our own economy from corporate manipulation and domination. I think these things will help the world's poor, and will help us, too.

You accused me of not offering solutions, but refusing to force repayment of odious debt is one, and the other is to not allow goods made by slave labor into our nation.

While I would agree with the proclamation that Sweat Shop labourers are virtually enslaved (because if they leave their jobs they'll starve to death), I would disagree with the idea that our boycotting their products would somehow reduce global poverty. Sweat Shops are result of poverty, not a cause of it. The fact of the matter is, the third world is poor because their local businesses are unable to compete in the world market, due to the fact that they do not have enough monetary power to make the sacrifices neccessary to sell products at a lower price then their foreign competitors. This is much like how the British ruined the Indian textile industry.

What needs to happen, is that the worlds wealth needs to be equalized, and the only thing that could/would do that well, would be a world government. Geting rid of Sweat Shops would only make people starve, though in way sweatshop labour is worse then death.

Also, we have to stop consuming so much. We must regain our creativity and come up with alternative energy sources and the infrastructure to apply them,

Fusions impossible, Coal and Oil are finite, there arnt enough rivers to provide sufficient hydroelectric power, heatsinks require close proximity to the magma layer (which is why they are only in Hawaii), nuclears just plain dangerous, winds unreliable, and solar power doesnt work well unless your in space. Are you really sure there are alternative energy sources? But hey im no scientist...I think life will go on, but well have to live on a lot less energy then we do now. (oh yeah, and forget plastic. For some reason that requires oil.)

as well as protect our own economy from corporate manipulation and domination. I think these things will help the world's poor, and will help us, too.

Regulation helps the workers, but hurts productivity. Thus its neccessary to have a balance. Are we at that balance? Considering what places like Canada get away with, id say we arnt.

Okay I think we've lost focus on what exactly we're arguing here. (I know I have)

To recap:
I argue that the combination of increased development aid (funded in accord with the Monterey Consensus), debt forgiveness, better trade conditions, and an organized system to handle it all in a goal-oriented approach to reduce extreme poverty in Africa and parts of Asia can work.

That the rich world can help poor nations stand on their feet and begin the climb out of poverty just as they did with the Marshall Plan.

Most recently I was meet with the reply that it'll never work. I responded with examples of were individual parts of the strategy have already worked and what I consider solid reasoning explaining how the system can be successful.

It seems to me I have not received a clear rebuttal.


Sorry if I was confusing. I agree that both of these measures should be implemented and would help greatly.

However what a am saying in that it isn't enough.

First, most of the debt owed by African nations in particular could not be classified as odious. It is owed to the World Bank and various other central banks in exchanged for aid given back in the late 70's.

This debt needs to be canceled as well as it is quite clearly unpayable and wastes funds that could be used to improve the lot of millions of people.

Second, very few good in the US are made by slave labor. Many are made in conditions that would be unacceptable in the US but for millions of people they are the best opportunity available.

It may seem counter-intuitive but telling a worker you're closing a Bangladesh "sweatshop" would likely earn you an earful. The garment workers are doing a lot better than they were before the shop opened up.

Textile factories are a step on the development ladder, given time a country will move beyond them, just as China is in the process of doing. The Chinese boom as not been in textile recently, but technology. The same goes for India.

Of course they could do even better if the international community would chip in to fund better education, safer drinking water, and the training and equipment needed so they could sustain both on their own.

I could argue for both sides of this issue but I will choose one creeping up more than often in the back of my brain. While a person is only as good as their word I believe there to be exceptions in which it is appropriate and a nation's duty to pull back from the table and call it a night. In December of 2,004 and the early months of 2,005 America was accused of not doing their part for the Tsunami Relief Fund. When last I checked America had single-handedly organized and donated most of the funds necessary to help that area survive the most critical weeks following the tragedy.

It is time America stop policing the world and return home. Even such a miniscule figure could aid impoverished Americans. Other nations do not line up to aid America, why should we line up to offer assistance to them. No, it is not our duty as richest nation to help those less fortunate. We have the duty to see to it that every child goes to sleep well-nourished in our own nation. Our duty is to see to it all sick and injured people can find proper medical care. Internal affairs of other nations should not be grounds to take money away from the direction it belongs.




We are in a time of war and a state of economic instability. We cannot continue to let money flow out of the backs of open windows into other nations when we are on the fast track to needing it ourselves. Who shall answer our pleas when we cry for help? We must help ourselves before we help others. We have been babysitter of the world for too long. It is time for America to help Americans.




A fine policy it is.




Of course he will. Like the IRS the World Bank does not like not receiving big fat checks of outrageous sums. The direction of that money should not be dictated by the World Bank even though Wolfowitz will encourage the heck out of countries to give and give until they have no more.

It is hard to argue with the contention on principle that all action by the United States should be strictly self-interested.

It is unlikely that the proven fact that instability thousands of miles away has disastrous consequences for the US would be recognized.

If the gaping hole in Manhattan didn't prove that, nothing will.

That said let's not pretend that aid money has to be taken from the mouths of the poor in America.

Some of America suffers from relative poverty, being poorer than the rest of the inhabitants of one of the world's richest nations.


The poverty being discuss does not exist in America. Extreme poverty, the financial inability to provide for one's basic livelihood is not present in our society. In the US no one has to live on a dollar a day.

The poor in America are doing well compared to much of the world's poor, they have the opportunity to do better.

I see nothing wrong with affording that opportunity to millions of others around the world when the chance presents itself.


I've got a hunch here.

I'd like you to please take a wild guess at how much money the US gives to other nations in aid as a proportion of the budget, off the top of your head if you don't mind.

I ask you not to ignore this critical question.

Other nations who live in a state of self-interest tend to do just fine. Do not say the United States cannot be self-interested. We were founded by Americans and are ruled by Americans the only nation I would consider aiding at anytime would be France for their military assistance during the revolution. Other nations have not helped shape this nation one iota and to throw money that could best be used to house the homeless, to find cures for diseases haunting children and to feed the hungry in this nation is just absurd. When we have every American living with a fully-stocked kitchen, a comfortable home and access to medical and educational services then we will be more ready to turn to other nations grievances.




There are still people suffering in this nation needlessly. People are starving, dying, suffering because aiding them is not a high priority. Our domestic affairs should take a higher role than our foreign policy toward poverty any day. People come to America to seek respite from a harsher life, not to die of hunger or to get sick and not have access to medical care.




You are correct. In America there are some people who pull in zero dollars per day. These people need help because they are our countrymen, they deserve food, clean water and good housing. They should not be placed on a lower shelf and be penalized for being in poverty in a rich nation.




Opportunity is not much when there is not help coming your way to realize it.




We cannot hold the world's hand and help them through hardship. We are not the appointed servants to global morale. Airline ethics are best "secure your mask before helping others." Our policy toward other nation's hardships should be "eliminate our own before eliminating others." Call it selfish, call it narrow-minded, but I do not like seeing American's die because other Americans are too concerned with other nation's qualms.




Anywhere from 220-260 billion dollars I'd amount. The federal budget is, I'd suppose, upwards of 7-8 trillion dollars.

The amount of money is just a fraction in comparison (from the workings of my brain). Yet do you realize the amount that could be done with that to better serve dying Americans and suffering children?

What are these nations?


Emergency medical care in this country is guaranteed, basic health services are dirt cheap and widely available. If people are dying of hunger in America it isn't because no one will feed them.



All of them have access to welfare and charity, not one person in the US has to live on one dollar a day.




A fraction is an understatement. It's less than 1%. Much of that is military aid to Middle Eastern allies.

Serving the poor in America and abroad are not mutually exclusive alternatives. It would take 0.7% of US production to back a global Marshall Plan for extreme poverty.

The success of foreign aid in Europe is undeniable and it can work elsewhere.

That money would be much better spent aiding those who don't even have a chance at escaping poverty.

I believe the poor in America should receive more help, but comparison to place like Sub-saharan Africa is ridiculous.

Again, one can decide on principle to be purely selfish and not much can be done to change that...

...however it is not a reasoned position but a fundamental choice of lifestyle.

Second, very few good in the US are made by slave labor.

Very few goods are made in the United States period. Hence, there are virtually no made in America labels on anything.

Many are made in conditions that would be unacceptable in the US but for millions of people they are the best opportunity available.

Ill admit, people can live in bad conditions, and be pretty happy in spite of it (as proof of this, I cite Latin America). However, there are limits, particularly when the labour prohibits one from having a social life. More on this below.

It may seem counter-intuitive but telling a worker you're closing a Bangladesh "sweatshop" would likely earn you an earful. The garment workers are doing a lot better than they were before the shop opened up.

Source

Heres what they said about their lives:
"We have no hope. There are no rays of hope for us. We have no life, we cant afford to marry, we have no wife, we have no social life. We live just work."

When asked whether they thought people in the US and Europe ever stopped to think about them or care about them they said:
"No. No one ever thinks about us"

They get paid starvation wages (they are forced to borrow from loan sharks to get enough food), they get beaten daily, 100 hour week, no speaking when working, all forms of unions violently repressed, 4 people must all live in one small hut, 365 work days a year...

How is that better then starvation? And since leaving the plant means death, how is that not slavery?

Textile factories are a step on the development ladder, given time a country will move beyond them, just as China is in the process of doing. The Chinese boom as not been in textile recently, but technology. The same goes for India.

As said by Ralou: if China's workers start commanding a higher wage, many multinationals will look elsewhere for their labor, flattening out or collapsing China's economy well before it reaches our level.

Of course they could do even better if the international community would chip in to fund better education, safer drinking water, and the training and equipment needed so they could sustain both on their own.

I am not against aid.

If the biggest consumer in the world (America) stopped purchasing sweatshop goods, the companies wouldn't go out of business and the manufacturing wouldn't stop. Conditions would improve because otherwise companies would not have access to prime markets, especially if Europe and Canada joined the boycott. Competition would, at very least, have a tolerable bottom 'threshold' and would, for a time, lead to a race upward, as companies vied to get back into the lucrative Western markets first. Companies would have no incentive to close up shop and move somewhere cheaper as wages and benefits rose, because they wouldn't be able to pay starvation wages, work people 20 hours a day, use child labor, and call up the local dictator to come shoot the union leaders.

That would help the world's poor far more than aid.

But we have to find alternative energy. If we don't, it's probably going to lead to massive war, possibly a war lethal to our species and to many other species. So if it doesn't exist, well, it doesn't exist, but we had better be looking, and looking hard!

Perhaps.

In any case don't let it be thought that I am in any way supporting worker exploitation.

I will glady concede the point that sweatshops are not desirable and everything should be done to eliminate them so long as it does not hurt the livelihood of the poor.

That said, here is where you go wrong.

No, I'm am afraid it wouldn't.

Most of the world's poor don't work in sweatshops. Most don't work in any kind of shop. Where they live there aren't any.

The face of extremepoverty is largely two-fold.

The rural sustenance farmer isolated from world or even regional markets, unable to grow enough food for her family let alon to sell and save money to improve here lot.

The urban poor, crowded in the slums of a bustling city living off refuse and handouts.

For these people most garment factories would be a step up, at least they'd get a wage and a shot at learning how to read and write.

The aid is for them and their countries. To improve farming techniques, educate children, and fund healthcare so that, over time, their economy would strengthen to the point that it could sustain itself.

To those worried about tangential issues, the benefit to the environment would be enormous.

It is the poor populations of the world that grow the fastest. Low education and high fertility rates go hand in hand.


Stable governments in the tropics means better chances to save the fragile ecosystems there by working with partners who can actually do something about it.

Very well, then I think we must have both. And we must stop forcing them to accept goods of ours that harm their own economies, and we must stop forcing them to adopt internal free trade practices when that harms their citizens, too. And how about we start paying a fair price for all of the oil, lumber, minerals, and medicines we get from these countries? Especially the oil. Megacorporations don't even pass the savings on to us. The higher oil prices go, the more money Exxon Mobil makes. And they don't share it out with the people living on top of it. That is what the situation is all about in Bolivia right now, isn't it? I certainly hope the US doesn't decide to intervene on behalf of the megacorps. We have done that far too often, and that is one of the reasons aid is so desperately needed.

Edited to add:

Thought this might be applicable, at least to some extent:



Does anyone know if this is true?

If the biggest consumer in the world (America) stopped purchasing sweatshop goods, the companies wouldn't go out of business and the manufacturing wouldn't stop. Conditions would improve because otherwise companies would not have access to prime markets, especially if Europe and Canada joined the boycott. Competition would, at very least, have a tolerable bottom 'threshold' and would, for a time, lead to a race upward, as companies vied to get back into the lucrative Western markets first. Companies would have no incentive to close up shop and move somewhere cheaper as wages and benefits rose, because they wouldn't be able to pay starvation wages, work people 20 hours a day, use child labor, and call up the local dictator to come shoot the union leaders.

Ok, if all the first world countries combined decided to do that, then perhaps conditions in sweatshops would improve. However thats a very selfless action, because while it would improve the world as a whole, it would drastically increase the price of pretty much everything you can think off. In addition, outsourcing would not stop, because the cost of living would still be lower overseas then it would be here, and consequently the above action would not benefit the US (or the other first world countries) at all. This isnt to say I dont think it should be done, merely that it wont be done. Also, if we did it alone, then it would completely ruin our economy, because it would give foreigners a huge economics advantage over us. The main trouble is, governments are only responsible to the people of their own nations, and thus arnt concerned enough with the common good of the world as a whole.

That would help the world's poor far more than aid.

Well Africa doesnt have that many Sweat Shops, because corperations deem it unstable, so I doubt it would help them much, and as Turnea says "Most of the world's poor don't work in sweatshops."

But we have to find alternative energy. If we don't, it's probably going to lead to massive war, possibly a war lethal to our species and to many other species. So if it doesn't exist, well, it doesn't exist, but we had better be looking, and looking hard!

Im not against looking, I just doubt well find anything, but what do I know. As for war..maybe, but I think it more probable that when things get bad enough, conservatism will become legally enforced, and the search for alternative energy will drastically speed up. The world has gone pretty far since WW2 (the last conflict between first world countries), and im confident our leaders will not commit actions which they know will merely lead to the destruction of society.

It doesn't have to be all the world's countries. The west is the consumer, the west could do it alone. If America led the charge, Europe and Canada would join in. Because outsourcing wouldn't stop (nor should it, the idea is to improve conditions and make things better worldwide), but many companies would find it cheaper to manufacture certain goods here. Did you know computer companies are thinking about getting an old barge, parking it just off the coastal waters of California, and stocking it with third world workers? That should be impossibly expensive, but it would be a good business move. Because these workers are so desperate, they'll take any wage, and any hardship, to feed their families. That is the ridiculous inequity human rights tariffs can reduce or end.




Africa has oil, natural gas, chocolate, and other goods America and Europe import. Diamonds, metals, etc. Human rights tariffs can affect raw materials, too. And should.




Conservatism? Not conservation? Was that a freudian slip?

I don't share your confidence. I think America has been hijacked by a bunch of greedy, shortsighted, and possibly clinically insane warmongers. They certainly aren't acting intelligent and responsible at the moment, why trust they will start doing so? We are already at the edge. Should have been developing and using every alternative that already exists to the extent it can be used (Vegetable oil, even used veggie oil from fastfood fryers, can be used to run diesel engines and that technology has existed for more than 100 years, yet we don't use it. Why not?).

But this is another of those issues I'd like to be wrong about.

It doesn't have to be all the world's countries. The west is the consumer, the west could do it alone.

I said: all the first world countries Not all countries. Also, being that Japan is a first world nation, just having all the western countries do this wouldn't be quite enough.

If America led the charge, Europe and Canada would join in.

Why would they? As I said, doing what your talking about is selfless, because it opposes national interests. Governments hold elections on national levels, and as a result, they are much more responsive to the interests of their own nations, then the interest of the world as a whole. The average layman/voter is far to ignorant to care about much that is beyond his own limited knowledge of political affairs, so consequently nations are more worried about themselves then humanity.

Because outsourcing wouldn't stop (nor should it, the idea is to improve conditions and make things better worldwide), but many companies would find it cheaper to manufacture certain goods here. Did you know computer companies are thinking about getting an old barge, parking it just off the coastal waters of California, and stocking it with third world workers? That should be impossibly expensive, but it would be a good business move. Because these workers are so desperate, they'll take any wage, and any hardship, to feed their families. That is the ridiculous inequity human rights tariffs can reduce or end.

Sweatshop workers don't have familys (they cant afford any).. and what exactly would be the benefit of shipping them here? Maybe transportation costs for goods would be reduced, but when have those been significant enough for businesses to care anyways? On top of all of that, it would be illegal.

Africa has oil, natural gas, chocolate, and other goods America and Europe import. Diamonds, metals, etc. Human rights tariffs can affect raw materials, too. And should.

Good point, I take the previous statement back.

Conservatism? Not conservation? Was that a freudian slip?

I dont know enough about established physiology to know exactly what your talking about, but the intended word was conservationism.

I don't share your confidence. I think America has been hijacked by a bunch of greedy, shortsighted, and possibly clinically insane warmongers.

Being a pure secularist, a liberal economist, a and pro-interventionist (though not in a place that doesn't even want help, like the Middle East), I tend to disagree with our Republican leadership on about 90% of everything, however that doesn't mean I think that they are bad people, merely that they are people who hold different beliefs then I do.

Greedy: Sure the Republican (and to a lesser degree the democratic) party is receiving corperate money, but how are they personally benefiting from that money, if it is all being spent on campains? With the exception of not allowing free trade in pharmaceuticals, there isn't very much that the republican party is doing that cannot be explained away by an honest belief in Reaganomics.

Shortsighted: Supposedly congress (bipartisanly) is now trying to cut the deficit in half (by 2009) through reduced spending, but even if they weren't, short sightedness is a sign of incompetence, not flawed morality.

Warmongers: Seeing that the war in Iraq has drastically reduced Iraqs oil output, its obvious we didn't go to war for oil. Our (or rather Bushes) real reasons must have either been to honestly help Iraq (which we haven't, but they might not have known that things wouldn't get better), or to extract vengeance from Saddam.

They certainly aren't acting intelligent and responsible at the moment, why trust they will start doing so?

Well the big bad Reps and Dams haven't didn't blow up the world in the Cold War crises, so why should we expect that they will do so in another crises?

We are already at the edge. Should have been developing and using every alternative that already exists to the extent it can be used (Vegetable oil, even used veggie oil from fastfood fryers, can be used to run diesel engines and that technology has existed for more than 100 years, yet we don't use it. Why not?).

Once more, I am not against searching for alternative forms of energy. As for vegetable oil, more energy is lost in its production, then is gained in its consummation. That having been said, it cant hurt to use the oil which we are already extracting anyway for energy purposes (which we aren't due to patent exploitation), though by itself that would not create enough power to run our society, its not a complete solution.

Nudging back to the topic here, I think the assumption that governments will only act in their self-interest is simply false.

A number of governments have committed their policies to the agreed 0.7% goal and a few have actually reached it.

The UK has been leading the effort recently but most of Europe and Japan is in agreement that foreign aid needs to be doubled in order to set the most impoverished nations on track.

It is the insular nature of American politics that allows the Bush administration to take advantage of a poorly-informed populace and resist the plans.

However, action is not precluded due to "human nature."

Much of humanity is in agreement on how to end extreme poverty.

EU 15 reach 'breakthrough' on aid targets

Seeing that Clinton has said: Every year, six million children die of malnutrition—that is one child every 3.6 seconds. Yet most experts agree that extreme poverty can be eliminated within a decade with an investment of just one half of one percent of the incomes of the developed countries. A .7% aid budget may indeed significantly solve the worse portion of the problems that face us. However, if the third world countries gain any real wealth, then the amount needed to advance their cause will increase (due to reverse inflation), and as a result, .7% aid will get us only so far. Completely developing the whole world would take a much larger amount of aid from the first world. and would consequently take more money then we are willing to commit. Also, could it not be argued that the natural result of global economics is a the creation partly poor, partly rich world? That is certainly the result of national economics, even in the richest countrys in the world (though admittedly the problems of our poor are nothing compared to the problems of the poor of the third world). If that is so, how do you propose we give this problem a permanent solution? Perhaps it aid could work as a kind of mininimun wage for third world countries, but I think a world government would do a much better job of equalizing wealth then this will.