Solving Global Poverty...

[gribbon]

This all seems far too general. Each and every country has had its own individual problems, their own unique failings, and their own solutions. That’s why when people say that corruption is the main reason for Africa remaining poor, they aren’t talking neccessarily sense. Indeed, some countries in Africa, (such as Nigeria) really have been crippled by corruption, but others ( such as Niger and Eritrea )are hardly any more corrupt than countries that are now booming (such as Russia etc).

 

We really do need to discuss how to solve poverty in each and every country which we regard as poor.

 

Let’s start with the absolute and utter poorest we can find:

 

Chad

 

So then, shall we debate how to improve this country?

 

Here’s a few improvements to begin with:

 

Improve the pathetic infrastructure.

Eliminate corruption.

Improve education.

Slow population growth.

Improve agriculture

Use oil production to finance growth.

 

Shall we continue?

[Michaelangelica]

OK there is a glimmer of understanding occurring here.

But

Money has the value we all decide it to be. It has no intrinsic value by itself. We all agree that it is worth something and carry on this fantasy.

Gold used to be money because it was rare, precious, sparkely, desirable and your mistress loved it.

Now we use paper. Figure that out!

A countries currency's exchange value is either pegged. (ie China's Govt. decides how many US$ it is worth)

or

the market decides.(The currency "floats" and is traded by speculators, in order to make more money)

the things that influence the markets are many but chief among these would be "Can I get my money back if I lend it to the USA?...? .Afganistan? etc"

If there is a big element of risk I will ask for a higher interest rate. International money often flows though the capital markets looking for the best rate. If there is a lot of inflation in my country the interest rate will go up (in a"free" market)

This is economics.

It is all very silly and will never help the poorest of the poor.

That's why we need mico-lending- charging interest as in the real world but with no security and lowish rates. Some (5%) very poor people will become much poorer. But 95% will become rich enough to send their kids to school and hire someone else to help. this is waht happens with micro-lending. (Strangely, this is how women think, men would put the kid's to work and save $ hiring anyone).

We are then not enriching people they are doing it themselves.

keep on enriching the Third World (or try to, at least), and we reach the dream of bringing them to our standards of income and living,

I'll say it again we are NOT enriching anyone but ourselves. Underdeveloped countries give more than they take in aid.

We only "invest" ( ie often "steal") when they have something we want oil, gas, gold diamonds

All countries, will never, and can never be as rich and profligate as the USA. Quite simply, the planet cannot afford it.

 

On aid

In fact, nothing has done more to undermine the ability of Third World populations to feed and support themselves than the billions spent on megaproject development. Vast uneconomic mining schemes in the Amazon poisoned watersheds and devastated native economies. The logging and deforestation of the world's tropical rainforests ended sustainable forestry practices and led to erosion and downstream agricultural destruction.

PMag v11n3p08 -- Misspent billions: Third World aid?

USA could help by stopping pork-barrelling farm subsides and let third world countries trade with you.

In the last few years the third world has pressed for a better deal in international trade. So far developed countries have refused to make any agreements that would achieve a substantial redistribution of wealth in favour of the developing countries

We could spend less on ourselves?

Very broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought when it comes to foreign aid; the crusaders and the infidels.

The crusaders hold that the United States and other economically advanced nations -- the collective West -- spend much too little helping poor nations overcome their poverty. The infidels maintain exactly the opposite; i.e., that the West spends too much. Which school has it right? Paradoxically, they both do.

The Debate About Foreign Aid

Trade Not Aid

 

Exposing the myth of Third World aid

 

 

June 17, 2006

Page 1 of 2 | Single page

 

PERHAPS the most important question of our time is why the West's efforts to help the world's poorest people have been so disappointing and even counterproductive, writes Michael Duffy.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

 

PERHAPS the most important question of our time is why the West's efforts to help the world's poorest people have been so disappointing and even counterproductive. In the past 50 years, we have spent $US2.3 trillion on foreign aid, to disturbingly little effect. An important new book suggests this has had a lot to do with the arrogance of the "big push" approach favoured by many development economists and organisations such as the World Bank and the United Nations.

 

William Easterly is a professor of economics at New York University. He used to be a believer: for 16 years he was a research economist at the World Bank

. . .

Easterly says the $US2.3 trillion hasn't achieved what it should have. This is because much of it has been given as part of a never-ending series of internationally planned and co-ordinated "big plans". He believes the alternative would be to encourage more market-oriented activities among the poor themselves.

. . .

he's saying that much foreign aid is delivered using a Soviet approach that Westerners would never dream of applying to their own economies.

. . .

In fact, in the 50 years to 2001, the poorest 20 per cent of countries (excluding communist and Persian Gulf oil nations as special cases) on average increased their income by about the same amount as all other nations. Perhaps the most surprising finding in the book is that foreign aid appears to have had nothing to do with this.

. . .

Easterly goes further, arguing that aid can actually prop up undemocratic governments. He draws a comparison between aid and the so-called "oil curse", where countries in which natural resources contribute a large proportion of wealth are more likely to be corrupt

. . .

Easterly believes the time has come to abandon big plans and adopt a more humble range of approaches that involve much more feedback from aid recipients. We need to look at small things that work locally and see if they can be replicated elsewhere. One idea is for "development vouchers" as a way for the poor to tell us what they want most.

But Easterly has no big plan of his own: he just thinks it's time for the post-colonial West to stop believing it still knows what's best for the Rest.:

Exposing the myth of Third World aid - Opinion - smh.com.au