Are wealthy countries in anyway responsible to lift poor countries out of poverty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rozellelily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tafan2 said:
Back to that Marshal Plan question:. Do you think that was good or bad?
Click to expand...
The Marshal Plan wasn’t about charity by any stretch of the word. It was about America competing with the USSR by getting its own allies back in business after the cataclysm of the 2nd World War.

The fact that America eventually emerged victorious from the Cold War, which was won without an open Hot War breaking out, I’d say it was a success.

But the implementation of the Marshal Plan had nothing to do with morality
 
The statement had been made that the government should not take our money and give it to other countries. I was trying to understand how dogmatic that opinion was.
IMO, it was the moral thing to do.
 
If the money is spent as it is intended, then it would be a good thing.

However most of these poor nations are poor because of corruption. The money given as aid goes to line the pockets of corrupt officials. So it’s US taxpayers giving money not to help the poor but to actually enforce corruption. It is actually in the best interest of corrupt politicians to keep their citizens poor to keep aid flowing which in turn makes them richer.

What is good about that? Merely handing over money without solving the underlying cause of poverty which is corruption does not help the poor.

Unfortunately the job of solving corruption will have to be solved by the citizens of that nation.
 
Last edited:
Sarcelle said:
What is good about that? Merely handing over money without solving the underlying cause of poverty which is corruption does not help the poor.
Click to expand...
Corruption isn’t the only cause of poverty.

Collectivism and socialism can cause poverty even if done by upstanding people. The experience of the failed “ownership in common” model with the Pilgrims wasn’t “corruption” that almost cause collapse of the colony.
 
We are so interconnected as nations that a misstep and any sort of domino effect may complicate things dramatically too.
Excesses. A very big structure in the public sector. Excessive salaries. Too many benefits.
Living above our paygrade,income,debts.
In other words,fasten seat belts,means fasten seat belts,for everybody.

And ineptitude of course.
But… Aid could perfectly well be monitored and provided in stages, as it is done in the private sector. A safe and efficient network.
 
Last edited:
Sarcelle said:
However most of these poor nations are poor because of corruption. The money given as aid goes to line the pockets of corrupt officials. So it’s US taxpayers giving money not to help the poor but to actually enforce corruption.
Click to expand...
Do you have any reference material to back up this assertion and that details how much ends up in the hands of corrupt officials?
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Still not answering the question.

How do you entice a highly qualified ceo to come work full time for a charity and not another company other than through financial incentive when that potential ceo has a family to provide for?
Click to expand...
If the ceo wants to earn 250k then go and look for a business opportunity. People give time and money to a charity to help people in need, not to make some rich guy feel good; that he is earning loads of money helping poor people.

I won’t give my time or money to a charity that pays its ceo 250k.
 
I am at work right now so I can’t answer right away.

I will have to get back to you with articles connecting poverty and corruption.

I don’t think I can give exactly how much money ends up in the hands of corrupt officials and I don’t think anyone can unless you go up to a corrupt official and ask him or her how much they have skimmed off the common pot.
 
Last edited:
Here is a link as promised


I could add a lot more references however it came out funny or it didn’t link right.

Anyway you could look it up for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Sarcelle said:
I could add a lot more references however it came out funny or it didn’t link right.

Anyway you could look it up for yourself.
Click to expand...
One question we can ask is about the direction of causality. Does corruption cause poverty or does poverty cause corruption? When people spend half their effort just trying to feed their families, they are likely to not be as concerned about corruption. Or it could be related to education. If 50% of your population is illiterate, it may be much easier to get away with corruption.
 
It’s like the chicken and egg question.

Which came first, poverty or corruption? I think it’s a vicious and endless loop.

I spent some time living in a poor country and I beg to differ about corruption not really affecting the people. It does affect the people. I have interacted with poor farmers who have to pay extra in bribe money to government officials so they could have permission to sell their harvest in the market. I have also seen small businesses pay extra to government bureaucrats so their store does not get robbed or vandalized or to merely obtain a business license. I could go on. A journalist friend of mine was taken into questioning by the local police because of a piece she wrote. Her parents had to pay bribe money for the release.

The government does not really work for the people, it steals from the people. So how is a country supposed to prosper with a government like that?
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt poverty and corruption go hand in hand. That wasn’t what I was asking for, sorry for not being clear. I was wanting information to back up the assertion that our aid goes into the pockets of corrupt individuals. That’s a fairly serious claim. I believe we have fairly tight controls on this, but if I am wrong, I would like to know.
 
At one point in time the US was as poor or more poor than most of the countries were speaking about. Most of our history we were a backwater, and yet never had the level of corruption we see in these countries.

It’s a cultural issue more than anything. Western civilization has the benefit of being almost entirely built on catholic principles. Even after the reformation and when secularism became the predominant mindset culturally our societal expectations are still founded on teachings of the church that took root during the late Roman Empire.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
At one point in time the US was as poor or more poor than most of the countries were speaking about. Most of our history we were a backwater, and yet never had the level of corruption we see in these countries.

It’s a cultural issue more than anything. Western civilization has the benefit of being almost entirely built on catholic principles. Even after the reformation and when secularism became the predominant mindset culturally our societal expectations are still founded on teachings of the church that took root during the late Roman Empire.
Click to expand...
How are you measuring corruption?
 
I can go to a local government office and pay a fee and know none of that fee is going into the person collecting it’s pocket
 
Latin America is also built on Catholic principles yet corruption is widespread there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top