|
I agree with me! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rich countries do---look at the amount of resources the western world transfer by volunteerism,
alone, to those less advantaged. It certainly could be more. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Its true that we could solve many of the problems in developing countries... But so what? America
earned what we have, and we don't have a responsibility to share it all with everyone else.
You cant really share the worlds resources equally anyway. Even if it was possible it would be a bad
idea. Then hundreds of developing and third-world countries would just start leeching off of a few
rich countries, and we would inevitably be dragged down to their level. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
How much is enough? Who gets the money? Who administers the money? How does one guarantee that
the money is spent on the "social goods" you detail as opposed to lining the pockets of dictators
and bureaucrats?
You seem to believe that "Rich Countries" are not already giving away huge sums of money to the
"Poor Countries" of the world.
FACT: In 2008, the USA budget for foreign aid was $20.23 Billion. Private charities have given
millions more.
Understand now that the $20 Billion represents money TAKEN from American citizens and businesses and
GIVEN to foreign people, governments, and businesses. And what do we have to show for it? Lots of
countries that don't like America very much. Some countries that support terrorists who have vowed
to destroy us. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Only if it benefits the rich country. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Initially you'd think this'd be a good idea, but if this happened then they may get used to the help
and become reliant on it |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Undeniably, the rich community of states has an obligation to aid those states that are poor,
however, I suggest that the methods here proposed will not have any beneficial effect, and certainly
would not be as effective as other measures. The modern day rich states are those that have been
historically rich, with very little change over the last 300 years; The reason for this? That rich
states have solid infrastructures that can distribute investments and provide stable growth.
Assuming that the members of rich states, ie. The tax payers, will only be willing to expend a
relatively small total on aid, then it must be most effectively employed. In a modern globalised
world this is evidently to provide an infrastructure that facilitates growth and foreign investment.
For this reason I am against giving, for example, food to developing countries (though surely the
euphemism is contradictory, a developing country one that is growing, hardly requires free food...) |
| |
 Jake  02 Oct 2008 17:35
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
