Salaam
With other events that also ocurred this week, this summit has almost been forgotten.
What are your opinions on it?
Apparently there was some talk of debt cancellation for some sub saharan countries, talk on the environment where the US was not willing to relent until the measures also applied to third world countries (even though US produces doubling in aid and a possibility of fair(er) trade. There was also upto $3BN pledged for the Palestinian Authority.
Until any of this is delivered, it is still a pipe dream. Less than 20% of Aid pledged to the Tsunami victims has been delivered.
Do you think these measure will have any effect? or are they just feel good measures?
Its all all... but does any1 actually do somethng?
Why do things like 'End Poverty' need debating?
It hould be simple: if u agree we need to end poverty then do somethng about it.
Back in BLACK
Everyone agrees that poverty is bad. However how to end it is open to debate.
After all in the last fifty years loads of money has been donated, and Africa is now poorer than it was before.
Free trade may be great, but how does the african farmer benefit if he cannot get his produce to the global marketplace?
Good education may be good, but what effect does it have if all the educated individuals leave to make more money in the richer world?
If you go out of your way to help them, are you just reducing help for someone else who is also needy?
These are real question that need real solutions. Its not a simple issue.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
The global marketplace is mostly detrimental for nations mired in both corruption and debt as nobody wants to invest in a country with no clear payment schedule and no apparent cashflow to it's debtors. Such an economy can collapse any time a struggling power calls its favour in, or can create military tensions, and isn't reliable. That is why it is wondeful to cancel debt, especially where old leaders have stood down, and begin again.
Don't know what to do about the African dictators. They've been given the money for this objective before. Vanished.
I disagree.
with trade the money seldom goes into the corrupt dictator's bank accounts, but straight to the producer.
regarding investment, external investment is not (IMO) required. They do not need Amazon like explosive expansion. The mere fact that food surplus from the west, subsidised by taxpayers is not dumped there will make farmers locally competitive. any surplus can then be put on the global market.
If any plan requires large initial investment, IMO it is doomed to fail.
Regarding debt and favours, you are correct.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Admin,
I agree.
"I disagree."
With what?
read the rest of the post. Next p[aragraph I outline what I disagree with and why.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
You are talking trade. I am talking aid and debt relief, which does pass through governments banks. In terms of the trade I guess you mean my assertion that nobody wants to invest in a stinkhole except to exploit it, implying some considered investment would be a good thing. I take your point it might not be. I don't think we're in great disagreement, and it sounds like you're especially keen not to impose concrete and electrics and plastics and humdrum everywhere, which is a point of view I pop in and out of, favouring pragmatics. I mean I think we both support ethical trade and investment.
Have I understood?
Yes we are in broad agreement.
IMO Aid should only be used for catastrophic events that are relatively short term. eg, tsunami, earthquakes, hurricanes, victims of war etc.
Long term Aid does not seem to have much impact.
With trade there does not need to be concerted external investment. Lives improve gradually, not in one long leap. So whilst external investment is wanted, its not really needed.
Extrernal investment, just like aid, is a double edged sword. In every society there are rich and poor (the 80:20 model is universal to almost all aspects of life. Read up on it. It applies to almost everything). The rich arte capable of investment. It may not be on the scale of external investment, but since it is local, it will be targetted better, and more effective as if investment is pulled, it does not immediately leave the country; it may be focussed on a different field that has more benefits.
In short provide a man a fish, you feed him for a day. provide him with a net you feed his family for life. It does not make sense providing him with a fish every day, while depriving him the opportunity to get a net.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.