NationStates Jolt Archive

And instead use the money to help Mexico and the other latin-american countries so they stay in their own crap country instead of coming into our country and abusing our resouces.

This is not the right place for this. I suggest general would be.

This would be the wrong forum for this.

This thread belongs in general discussions.

"Abusing your resources"?

As I understand it, working in your country makes your country as a whole richer...

The U.S. should stop giving food and money to Africa...
Definitely. Why just the other day I saw an American who wasn't fat. This can't be allowed to go on.

And instead use the money to help Mexico and the other latin-american countries so they stay in their own crap country instead of coming into our country and abusing our resouces.

That's right. America should be allowed to abuse its resources on its own.

And instead use the money to help Mexico and the other latin-american countries so they stay in their own crap country instead of coming into our country and abusing our resouces.

Aside from the factual errors in your statement, you're basically saying "Let's give Mexico money so Mexicans can stop getting our money."

So lets take the money from perhaps the poorest, most war torn nation in the world, and give it to people to keep them from becoming self sustaining?

Aside from the factual errors in your statement, you're basically saying "Let's give Mexico money so Mexicans can stop getting our money."

You win!

And instead use the money to help Mexico and the other latin-american countries so they stay in their own crap country instead of coming into our country and abusing our resouces.

Not until alot of the corruptness is taken out of these governments, that goes for both Africa and Latin American counties.

No, sub-saharan Africa is a very good place (at least in theory) for American aid money to go, and now merely because of humanitarian concerns.

This cartoon helps illustrate a point I'd like to make:

http://filibustercartoons.com/comics/20031110.gif

The populations of these Arab countries are not, generally speaking, particularly committed to democracy, are rabidly anti-Semitic, anti-American and would not lose a wink of sleep if the State of Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, along with it's entire Jewish population. These countries, though they may be formally allies of the United States, are certainly no friends of America. In 2003 Prime Minister Tony Blair, addressing British ambassadors in London said,

"We are the ally of the US not because they are powerful, but because we share their values. I am not surprised by anti-Americanism; but it is a foolish indulgence. For all their faults and all nations have them, the US are a force for good; they have liberal and democratic traditions of which any nation can be proud."

Can you imagine the King of Saudi Arabia saying, well, anything like that, anything even remotely similar? But sub-Saharan Africa is another manner entirely. Eight black African nations have sustained free, liberal democracy for at least the past ten years, six for the past fifteen, and two (Botswana and Mauritius) for thirty-eight years or more -- Botswana has been both democratic and free for its entire forty years of independence -- they've been free for longer than Greece has. Several other African nations have recently gained true political, legal and social freedom.

The citizens of black African nations, in general, are very supportive of democracy and personal liberty. They're pro-globalization, pro-IMF, pro-World Bank, pro-multinational corporation, and very strongly pro-American. In fact, the populations of sub-Saharan Africa are more pro-globalization than any other people, and more approving of U.S. foreign policy and the U.S.' influential role in the world than anyone except U.S. citizens themselves.

My point is that despite rampant corruption, the devastation of the AIDS crisis, and severe economic difficulties in many African nations, there's still a lot of hope. Foreign aid can't make people want to be free, but it can do a lot to help Africa deal with its many perennial problems. On the other hand, despite the enormous amount of aid and support the West has extended to the Arab world, it is, on the whole, no freer, nor any more democratic, than it was thirty years ago. (In fact, the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal annual publication Freedom in the World tells us that while eight Arab countries are freer today than thirty years ago, nine Arab countries are less free than in 1976.

The bottom line is that Western values have, in large part, already been successfully export to Africa -- that's one of the reasons that, despite ill-educated and nonsensical claims that "poverty causes terrorism, yuk yuk yuk", black Africans aren't the ones driving airplanes into skyscrapers. We've successfully laid a groundwork for African modernization, and real, meaningful aid to sub-Saharan Africa will have enormous potential benefits in the future -- not only humanitarian, but political and economic as well.

Screw the Saudis. The Nigerians have oil out the wazoo, and they actually like us.

And instead use the money to help Mexico and the other latin-american countries so they stay in their own crap country instead of coming into our country and abusing our resouces.

What kind of nonsense is this? Are you just out to start a fight? I'm sure you wouldn't have massive migration from South America if you hadn't spent the last 200 years proping up their dictators, undercutting their markets and selling any crackpot anti-comunist small arms! I'm an African, We need all the help we can get, better aid - which might mean less aid, help removing our dictators - many of who came to power in a US ticket and improving our infustructure. If you don't help us, you will risk creating more wave upon wave of radicalised muslims and christians and we all know where that leads to.

And instead use the money to help Mexico and the other latin-american countries so they stay in their own crap country instead of coming into our country and abusing our resouces.You mean the ones stolen from the original inhabitants?

The USA- a country built on immigration, attempting to block immigration.

The USA- a country built on immigration, attempting to block immigration.


You could call that 'Mission Accomplished', you know?

The USA- a country built on immigration, attempting to block immigration.

Attempting to block illegal immigration. The US is quite happy to have people come to its shores by legitimate means.

I believe the U.S. should build a wall to stop illegal immigration. But they should build it at the bottom of Mexico. It'll be much shorter that way.

No, sub-saharan Africa is a very good place (at least in theory) for American aid money to go, and not merely because of humanitarian concerns...*big snip*

This, quite honestly, is perhaps the best post I have yet seen on NS General.

Kudos to you! You deserve a whole basket of COOKIES! (http://www.mrsfields.com/files/products/549_400x400.jpg) :)

Oh, and that comic is SO sigged!

In my opinion, the Arab world has been screwed up so much, for so long, that no amount of aid/money/guns/nukes will ever make it seem like a so-called "normal" democratic region ever again. The 'States should be focusing on their own problems, but speaking as a Canadian, I say that America has ruined Iraq, after bombing all of it's oil fields and crippling the economy. They should leave and never go back.

No, I don't hate America, I hate its idiot Government.

I still have to ask all the closed border people in the US: Where do you plan to get your cheap labour from?

It is not at all politically correct to say it, but the best thing for Africa is colonization.
The greatest development came from European colonization of Africa – since independence, most nations have gone sharply downhill. Colonial rule was the best thing for them. [yes that had a tinge of sarcasm to it (more ironic despair really), I have a pretty good grasp of history and don’t need a lesson]. While direct colonial rule is not currently feasible, implicit control of improvement projects is quite feasible.

Getting rid of corruption and graft, reducing barriers to economic development (such as onerous regulations and costly fees associated with starting a business), and eliminating trade barriers (they have much more to gain trading with each other than with the developed world, yet tend to block trade with their neighboring nations) would be the best solution. But since that is not really feasible… pull out your “I support Mugabe even though he turned the breadbasket of Africa into a starving nation but he isn’t white and some black kids from the ghetto who have never so much as seen a plow before should have the farms rather than white farmers anyway” t-shirt and lets look at some things that are possible.

Giving money to these nations is counter-productive because all it does is allow them to continue their failed policies and to line the pockets of the corrupt politicians. Giving them food aid drops the local price of food so local farmers cannot make any money. This kind of aid is a lose-lose proposition.

The only aid that should be given is to pay development companies to go in and improve things. In exchange the local governments agree to stay hands off.

Development companies can move in to build wells and irrigation systems so people have access to clean water (which would drastically reduce health problems), better roads to transport goods, and better education.

Had I my way, I would implement some very simple things.
1) establish wells and aqueducts for drinking water and irrigation.
2) Build better infrastructure in the form of stable roads and rail lines.
3) Start micro-investment banks to establish a banking system
4) Start small teaching facilities such as a farm or vocational shops

Clean drinking water is very cheap to provide and shows a huge benefit. The greatest return on investment lies here, yet very little aid is spent on improving access to safe drinking water. When you cut water-borne illness you see a drastic increase in productivity in the workforce (when you're not suffering from dysentery you can get a lot more done) as well as free up medical assets to tackle other diseases.

Transportation is very important. Not only will it allow trade (and thus the economy) to grow, but one of the problems in getting aid to places that need it is that in eastern Africa it costs more and takes longer to move bulk commodities a few miles inland than it does to get those commodities to the coast from Kansas City.

Economic growth is the best way to pull people out of poverty (duh).
A banking system is a great way to boost the local economies. Micro-investment banks allow people to keep bank accounts despite very low assets, so people think about saving more, and can provide business loans so the capital to improve or develop businesses is available.

A large farm could be setup in an area and devoted to using the best crops and methods for that particular area. This farm could grow food for sale and hire a lot of workers. These workers learn these ‘best practices’ and can then take them back to their own farm or to other communities – basically like having an agricultural school. It would never be able to turn a profit (though it will at least be able to cover a lot of the cost) but the benefits to the community are astounding. You have employment and available food in the short run, and greater knowledge improving all area farms as well as previously unskilled workers able to go off to find better jobs elsewhere in the medium term. Long term effects are a comparatively minor investment (subsidizing the production to be able to be over-staffed with high turnover) to reap major economic and environmental gains.

Anyway, that is just shooting from the hip as it were. What do you think?

I still have to ask all the closed border people in the US: Where do you plan to get your cheap labour from?
Outsourcing, offshoring and 'illegals'.


And to those who pretend that "legal" and "illegal" are obvious and well defined concepts: In a political forum the definitions of those things are open for discussion. Saying "I want open borders" means "I want to change the law so that the illegals can come here legally", while "I want closed borders" means "I want to change the law so that more immigrants become illegals". Saying "legal is fine" in NS general is like saying "just follow the recipe" in a cooking forum.

It is not at all politically correct to say it, but the best thing for Africa is colonization.
The greatest development came from European colonization of Africa – since independence, most nations have gone sharply downhill. Colonial rule was the best thing for them. [yes that had a tinge of sarcasm to it (more ironic despair really), I have a pretty good grasp of history and don’t need a lesson]. While direct colonial rule is not currently feasible, implicit control of improvement projects is quite feasible.

Getting rid of corruption and graft, reducing barriers to economic development (such as onerous regulations and costly fees associated with starting a business), and eliminating trade barriers (they have much more to gain trading with each other than with the developed world, yet tend to block trade with their neighboring nations) would be the best solution. But since that is not really feasible… pull out your “I support Mugabe even though he turned the breadbasket of Africa into a starving nation but he isn’t white and some black kids from the ghetto who have never so much as seen a plow before should have the farms rather than white farmers anyway” t-shirt and lets look at some things that are possible.

Giving money to these nations is counter-productive because all it does is allow them to continue their failed policies and to line the pockets of the corrupt politicians. Giving them food aid drops the local price of food so local farmers cannot make any money. This kind of aid is a lose-lose proposition.

The only aid that should be given is to pay development companies to go in and improve things. In exchange the local governments agree to stay hands off.

Development companies can move in to build wells and irrigation systems so people have access to clean water (which would drastically reduce health problems), better roads to transport goods, and better education.

Had I my way, I would implement some very simple things.
1) establish wells and aqueducts for drinking water and irrigation.
2) Build better infrastructure in the form of stable roads and rail lines.
3) Start micro-investment banks to establish a banking system
4) Start small teaching facilities such as a farm or vocational shops

Clean drinking water is very cheap to provide and shows a huge benefit. The greatest return on investment lies here, yet very little aid is spent on improving access to safe drinking water. When you cut water-borne illness you see a drastic increase in productivity in the workforce (when you're not suffering from dysentery you can get a lot more done) as well as free up medical assets to tackle other diseases.

Transportation is very important. Not only will it allow trade (and thus the economy) to grow, but one of the problems in getting aid to places that need it is that in eastern Africa it costs more and takes longer to move bulk commodities a few miles inland than it does to get those commodities to the coast from Kansas City.

Economic growth is the best way to pull people out of poverty (duh).
A banking system is a great way to boost the local economies. Micro-investment banks allow people to keep bank accounts despite very low assets, so people think about saving more, and can provide business loans so the capital to improve or develop businesses is available.

A large farm could be setup in an area and devoted to using the best crops and methods for that particular area. This farm could grow food for sale and hire a lot of workers. These workers learn these ‘best practices’ and can then take them back to their own farm or to other communities – basically like having an agricultural school. It would never be able to turn a profit (though it will at least be able to cover a lot of the cost) but the benefits to the community are astounding. You have employment and available food in the short run, and greater knowledge improving all area farms as well as previously unskilled workers able to go off to find better jobs elsewhere in the medium term. Long term effects are a comparatively minor investment (subsidizing the production to be able to be over-staffed with high turnover) to reap major economic and environmental gains.

Anyway, that is just shooting from the hip as it were. What do you think?

I agree with 99.9% of it...the other .1% is inconsequential.

Another excellent post, two in one thread...:)

Makes me want to drag out my research paper on African conflicts from freshman year of college. :p

This thread belongs in general discussions.

Oh yeah, any ill-considered, banal and nationalistically self-centred statement automatically belongs in General. Why do we always get the shitty end of the stick?

I still have to ask all the closed border people in the US: Where do you plan to get your cheap labour from?

Black people, duh. It's the American Dream to own a pet negro. :)

Black people, duh. It's the American Dream to own a pet negro. :)

...where's the arched eyebrow smiley?

...where's the arched eyebrow smiley?

Haha. :p What, you actually thought I was being serious?

Black people, duh. It's the American Dream to own a pet negro. :)

I had a pet negro once. His name was Blackie, and he was very short and thin. When I set him free, he died from a head wound.

...Oh, I thought you were talking about cats.

I had a pet negro once. His name was Blackie, and he was very short and thin. When I set him free, he died from a head wound.

...Oh, I thought you were talking about cats.

Aw, it was so believable too until you ruined it. :(

Aw, it was so believable too until you ruined it. :(

Hey, I didn't wanna get deleted again. :p

I still have to ask all the closed border people in the US: Where do you plan to get your cheap labour from?

I'm not really a closed border person, but more a closed to illegal entry person.

Cut off welfare programs for people who refuse to work. There are obviously plenty of jobs available. If you refuse to take a job, you get no welfare. Maybe modify the welfare system so that if you have a job that doesn't meet minimum needs (not wants, but real needs) THEN you can qualify for welfare, but you have to work.