The cost of fixing things.
12/5/10 10:23![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsBack in the 80s, I went to a presentation on world poverty being run by a group called The Hunger Project.
One of the arguments being discussed was that poverty was not inevitable. we had , after all, put a man on the moon - so could we not end poverty on Planet Earth?
Think of the cost of giving every child on Earth a decent home with running water, with proper sanitation, and then giving all those children a primary education and then an adequate diet. the cost would run into astronomical figures.
I was actually shown the figure on a screen - a huge number with a whole string of noughts on the end.
" And yet, " the speaker told us " this is what the UK spends every year on chocolate and sweets, its what Europeans spend every month on alcohol, and it's what the USA spends every day on armaments."
Wow!
A more recent figure put it at three trillion US dollars. A trillion = 1,000,000,000,000. It's a thousand billions, and a billion is a thousand millions. That is a lot of money - and yet, I wonder how much that would come to in terms of government spending? Is it an accurate estimate even? It must be added that the money needs to be spent wisely and not funnelled off by corrupt dictators - but what would the cost be of eliminating endemic poverty , and could the world actually raise that amount?
One of the arguments being discussed was that poverty was not inevitable. we had , after all, put a man on the moon - so could we not end poverty on Planet Earth?
Think of the cost of giving every child on Earth a decent home with running water, with proper sanitation, and then giving all those children a primary education and then an adequate diet. the cost would run into astronomical figures.
I was actually shown the figure on a screen - a huge number with a whole string of noughts on the end.
" And yet, " the speaker told us " this is what the UK spends every year on chocolate and sweets, its what Europeans spend every month on alcohol, and it's what the USA spends every day on armaments."
Wow!
A more recent figure put it at three trillion US dollars. A trillion = 1,000,000,000,000. It's a thousand billions, and a billion is a thousand millions. That is a lot of money - and yet, I wonder how much that would come to in terms of government spending? Is it an accurate estimate even? It must be added that the money needs to be spent wisely and not funnelled off by corrupt dictators - but what would the cost be of eliminating endemic poverty , and could the world actually raise that amount?
(no subject)
Date: 15/5/10 21:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/5/10 01:11 (UTC)As much as it may pain is to see our fellow men suffering we must simply stop ALL attempts to provide for the 3rd world
Now, the place where we can get involved is when a nation shows it has chosen to develop stable systems and is dedicated to providing a better life for it's citizens (and, no this cannot be shown through it's government, it's people need to demonstrate it with their actions) providing them with knowledge assistance
So, basically, Rasilio (and possibly you) claims: No funds, crops or other foods or aid to 3rd world countries until the people (not the government) show that they have created a stable system without corruption/oppression. In another thread Rasilio is asked how a people under dictatorship or oppression, with extreme poverty is going to manifest this great task - Rasilio then answers with examples of revolutions. When confronted with the fact that all revolutions have already had the actual wealth level of maintaining a big middle class, Rasilio admits that this is true, but then claims that in a modern revolution the middle class isn't vital and peasants living in extreme poverty under oppression can overthrow their government. When asked to name one such example of such a revolution (with no middle class and under extreme poverty with an oppressive government) ever, modern or otherwise, he fails to answer.
hence conclusion: Rasilio thinks there are choices, even under extreme poverty and oppression, but can't prove it with any examples. He claims no help should be given until the system is stable, he gives no examples what so ever on how to "get" these systems stable, except to leave them be so they can become so, but once a system in a country is stable enough (a government is overthrown and a structural stability has manifested somehow),then he claims that "experienced" economies can benevolently give help in the form of advice.
Basically do nothing when it comes to countries under extreme poverty and oppression.
Hence, once again: Rasilio is advocating INACTION when it comes to aid, INACTION when it comes to building up structures and INACTION when it comes to financial aid even when rudimentary structures are in place.
Therefore the sentence "get the systems to change" that you used, is NOT applicable to Rasilios thesis, unless you mean that systems change by the complete inaction of other countries.
(no subject)
Date: 16/5/10 02:16 (UTC)In the way that we've been doing it, which is just handing it over to their governments. Yes, that kind of aid does not help.
Yes, it means do things other than that to help them change their systems.
(no subject)
Date: 16/5/10 02:31 (UTC)There are several other international efforts made rather than giving things to governments when it comes to foreign aid, I've named some concrete existing ones in other threads, but whatever.