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.
I think most people here assumed that, but they were giving you a shot at redeeming yourself with an actual argument.
 
Socrates92 said:
I did a little search on the Fahour story. Apparently, under his watch, the profit of the company jumped from $16M to $131M within a couple years. Now, I’m not a businessman, but I suspect that a 700%+ profit growth over two years is fairly exceptional. I think the onus of proof is on the argument that he didn’t deserve his $4.8M salary and $1.2M bonus.
Click to expand...
Fahour transformed the company which has revenues of 7 Billion AUD and more than 30,000 employees.
 
Last edited:
Right. I haven’t read too much about him or the company, but the impression I"m getting is that he was worth every penny he was paid.
 
Yes.

If countries like Sweden, Norway and the United Arab Emirates can spend up to 1% of their GNI on foreign aid and development programs why not US? Think of the potential we could achieve.

Practically, wouldn’t having strong and robust defense (Department of Defense), diplomatic (Department of State) and development (USAID) sectors help ensure global development and hopefully the pursuit of world peace and stability (renewing Pax Americana?)?
 
Last edited:
Many foreign countries will not get out of poverty unless and until they can clean up the corruption in their governments. And it is seriously debatable whether the US should meddle in overthrowing those governments. As to world peace; we will achieve that when humans become sinless. to give a very minor example, during the Vietnam war, it was stated (and I have yet to see anyone refute it) that Vietnam had 250 years of peace since the time of Christ.

global development won’t occur without education, and education will not occur to a significant level when the government is somewhere between mostle and totally corrupt. and to that, one can add the issue(s) of culture, as some countries are not far removed, or are largely still caught up in a hunter/gatherer cycle that has not moved beyond a seasonal rotation.
 
Last edited:
Could not the US amply fund programs like the Global Partnership for Education and thus let development run its course over a generation or two (20-50 years?)?

Additionally, our global health initiatives help save many lives, what is the point of teaching the man to fish if he is claimed by Malaria or some other pestilence?

While I agree that USAID cannot solve every ill and that well-intentioned programs can lead to unintended consequences, I think the US can (and already does) play a role in helping the world, why not build on that by strengthening such initiatives (including WASH, and other global health initiatives which are already providing dividends in saved lives)?

Pardon for sounding very idealistic, I understand that substantially increasing foreign aid would require an adjustment but it seems like there is so much potential that can be done. Additionally, on cynical terms, it would boost our global image, hopefully encouraging stronger international relations.
 
Last edited:
The issue with Ahmed Fahour was that he was in a public service role and the $5 million + salary therefore was paid by the public purse.
Compare that to the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s salary which is approx $500,000 a year.
 
Last edited:
And other factors - the price of postage, for example, jumped hugely on his watch, while public perception of the quality of the service (ie the reliability of mail delivery) has decreased hugely at the same time.

Charging more for worse service does not, to my mind, make a good CEO, not justify a huge salary.for such.
 
Prior to his appointment Express post used to mean overnight post but now I find it can take up to 4 days and the bag/service are still the same cost.
 
Rozellelily said:
Compare that to the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s salary which is approx $500,000 a year.
Click to expand...
What did Turnbull turn around and accomplish?

The founder of FedEx, while CEO of FedEx in 2008, Frederick W. Smith earned a total compensation of $10,434,589 , which included a base salary of $1,430,466 , a cash bonus of $2,705,000 , stocks granted of $0, and options granted of $5,461,575 .
 
Last edited:
RCIAGraduate said:
If countries like Sweden, Norway and the United Arab Emirates can spend up to 1% of their GNI on foreign aid and development programs why not US? Think of the potential we could achieve.
Click to expand...
We already do that!!!

And much more!!!

AND, in addition, It does not include money from private charitable organizations

As of fiscal year 2017, foreign aid between the U.S. State Department and USAID totaled $50.1 billion, or just over 1% of the budget.[8]

United States foreign aid is aid given by the United States government to other governments. It does not include money from private charitable organizations based in the United States, or remittances sent between family members. There are two broad categories: military aid and economic assistance.[1] The Congressional Research Service divides it into five categories: bilateral development aid, economic assistance, humanitarian aid, multilateral economic contributions, and military aid.[2]

Foreign aid recipients include developing countries, countries of strategic importance to the United States, and countries recovering from war. The government channels about half of its economic assistance through a specialized agency, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Government-sponsored foreign aid began a systematic fashion after World War II; there were numerous programs of which the largest were the Marshall Plan of 1948 and the Mutual Security Act of 1951-61.

Foreign aid is generally unpopular with the general public, with a 2017 poll finding 57% favor a cut and 6% who want increased aid.[4] On the other hand, foreign aid has bipartisan support in Congress,[5] and most Americans overestimate foreign aid as a share of the total federal budget. In the past, less than 1% of the national budget went to foreign assistance.[6][7] As of fiscal year 2017, foreign aid between the U.S. State Department and USAID totaled $50.1 billion, or just over 1% of the budget.[8]

)
 
Last edited:
Government programs are bureaucracies.

Which are philosophically unable to be innovative.

Innovation is inimical to a bureaucracy.

Even President Jimmy Carter recognized that sad fact … he abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Civil Aeronautics Board because their regulatory functions strangled the transportation industry.
 
Last edited:
Memo to self: “moringa”.


click here google youtube moringa oleifera

Indigenous to The Philippines … grows where ever there isn’t any frost … all parts are edible.
 
Last edited:

Lately, a lot have been said about the cattle rearers and herders clash with local community. The Middle Belt or the North Central part of the country has been busy lately. The zone has been made a theatre of war and a lot of blood have been spilled. The major cause has been grazing reserve or what they term “grazing colonies”, we don’t want to talk about ranching again, we know that it might not be possible but they should look inward not far. They should look at Niger State ! A state blessed and huge yet untapped. Niger State is the solution here.

Niger state, for example, is over 15 times bigger than Anambra in size.It is bigger than ten states in Nigeria combined yet it has a population that is much less than that of Anambra.

Adopt the “holistic” grazing system … advocated for years by Allan Savory: [there are a hundred or more youtubes by and about him]


click here google youtube savory


click here google youtube savory
 
Last edited:
While government intervention may not be perfect, it does provide capacity-building through public funding which allows efforts to be scaled up and thus reach out and help more people, possibly accelerating development initiatives and ideally securing brighter and better futures for folks and communities that benefit from such projects.

I understand foreign aid isn’t perfect and the way programs were organized (as seen throughout history and possibly even now) are cause for concern but I believe if Americans are informed about the proper context of development assistance and global relief efforts (only 1% of the federal budget), perhaps many or at least some will be moved to promoting such programs.

Ideally, public development efforts and private initiatives together would serve as a solution to forming a better world. Why not both?
 
RCIAGraduate said:
While government intervention may not be perfect, it does provide capacity-building through public funding which allows efforts to be scaled up and thus reach out and help more people, possibly accelerating development initiatives and ideally securing brighter and better futures for folks and communities that benefit from such projects.
Click to expand...
Actually, no.

Government officials have no special knowledge.

In fact, governments [or at least the American government] tend to oppose new things or innovative things.

Innovation terrifies government bureaucracies.

Look at all of the innovative things I have posted already.

They were introduced by private individuals … NOT by government(s).

And governments have not implemented any of them.

Read back, about Plumpy’Nut. Private organization.

#363 above.
 
Last edited:
Here is another innovation … introduced by a Dutch tulip grower:

For developing forests and tree plantations in desert areas:


click here google youtube groesis waterboxx

Not a government entity … at all.


click here google youtube groesis waterboxx dubai

In fact, see if you can get a fellowship with USAID or the Peace Corps to introduce innovation.
 
Last edited:
But will private parties be able to scale up their efforts to reach the bulk of those in need? Also, I don’t think every government worker is a bureaucrat who wishes to hamstring progress, there are rules and regulations established for a reason (perhaps due to a past incident they wish not to be repeated). Perhaps there are talented technocrats in agencies like USAID (perhaps there is one, here) willing to do what it takes to make a better that.

That said, it is quite reassuring to see private efforts in action.
 
Last edited:
RCIAGraduate said:
But will private parties be able to scale up their efforts to reach the bulk of those in need? Also, I don’t think every government worker is a bureaucrat who wishes to hamstring progress, there are rules and regulations established for a reason (perhaps due to a past incident they wish not to be repeated).
Click to expand...
Nope.

Read this thread from the beginning.

Bureaucrats are TERRIFIED.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top