I suspect that in many cases, we are. Probably not for the reasons people think, though.
Our govt. does nothing for nothing in return. They always want something for the "assistance" (eh hem, if that's what we're calling it), who can attest to this better than us, the citizens living under this monster?
Those somethings usually take shape as political favors that benefit U.S. more than the peoples of the nations we claim we're helping. That alone presents a problem. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for charity, unfortunately... I don't think that's quite what they're doing. Just sayin...
Giving aid where it is needed is a good thing.. But the way in which it is given should be thought out carefully.. If i was giving food aid to a country i would deliver it to their farmers to cover their crop losses.. They then could sell the aid in their local markets as if it was their normal yearly crop as they normally sell.. In this way the local economy would not be dramatically affected by the distortion that food aid can cause.. In a lot of cases good local farmers have been ruined economically and had to leave their land because of the flood of food aid landing in their country.. This has happened to a number of farmers in eastern Ethiopia who abandoned their land because they could no longer support themselves financially after a flood of aid was landed in Ethiopia during the last major dry event.. Even farmers in Northwest Ethiopia where adversely affected by the aid.. They had crops to sell but the price for their crops had crashed and they could not afford the price of transporting that crop to eastern Ethiopia...
Sure. We are feeding the corruption as well as throwing away our own resources. It's time to stop.
It's a complex question (Alas, your Poverty, Inc. link didn't play any sound for me).
On a purely humanitarian level, alleviating suffering is a noble moral goal. But, as I'm guessing your link noted, there are side effects. Foreign aid can disrupt local economies (read John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic HItman for a discussion of how disruption is often deliberate). Often, aid comes with economic strings (Smash Labor, Shrink Government, Open Markets) or political strings (Crush Leftists, Buy Our Weapons) attached. Sometimes the "aid" is more about finding a place to dump the excess production of heavily subsidizided agriculture in rich industrialized countries than it is about helping the target population (I saw an interesting film about how Ameircan surplus milk powder was sent to Puerto Rico, thereby destroying the local dairy industry).
I don't think foreign aid to struggling nations should be eliminated, but it does need to be made smarter.
It is not for free.
There is more involved than charity and good will.
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes it's enslavement. But, like with Japan post WW2, it's a positive support effort. Motives can be good, bad, neutral, and the response can be positive or negative.
I think we are crippling ourselves if we don't have a workable plan. Just funneling money somewhere helps nothing. But offering someone a leg up so they can empower themselves is never a waste of effort, unless you are empowering a country that is hell bent on destruction. (you know, like ours is)
I think I follow you. So, aid, in general, is ok, but we shouldn't provide so much support that they don't try to take care of their own?
I think you hit on something that nobody else here did so far.
That is brilliant. One of the things the documentary points out is that we're hurting the local economies and the individual entrepreneurs and farmers by overwhelming them with supplies, so people lose everything. I wonder if there is a way to assess who needs the supplies easily though.
Hmm... Iwonder if the stuff you've disabled is messing with the sound? It is working for me, but it's not a YouTube video, so maybe it is read by the browser differently?
Anyway, you are spot on with your assessment of the documentary... it talks a lot about incidents like Puerto Rico.
To clarify, you think nations intentionally cripple countries by providing aid? It's a thought I hadn't considered.
Can you elaborate?
Yeah, that's kind of where the documentary went, but it was more about supplies than cash and empowerment was a big part of the proposed solution.
Obviously, the premise of the video is to say yes.and after watching, I would be hard pressed to not agree. On the other hand, I don't think that it matters too much to the dispossesed, or the war casualties, where the needed aid comes from. I don't think that the politico/economic situation is at the forefront In the minds of people running from wars that we, ourselves, have sometimes made happen. That's a tough question.
Puerto Rico? I think that the situation be falling a commonwealth of the United States (PR), may be a little different than the situation in Syria or Darfur.
NO...We are not . Do we give too much ? Yes, in many cases . We are not crippling anyone by trying to help them .
It's the infamous carrot and stick. Course, our govt. always thinks itself morally superior, but when you look at the actual outcomes for peoples of these nations, you begin to wonder if moral means what they think it means.
One policy agreement our govt. seems to favor is the consequence-free violation of sovereign borders with their drones or conducting military operations in the countries etc.
