0.7% GDP Target for Foreign Aid

[Riverwind]

We have heard a lot of talk in the media about how Canada should increase its aid to Africa to 0.7% of GDP. I knew this number is deceptive because federal government budget (where the aid would have to come from) is a some fraction of the GDP. So I did some number crunching:

Canada GDP 2004: 1,216 Billion

Federal Gov't Revenue 2004: 186.2 Billion

GST Revenue 2004: 28.3 Billion

0.7% GDP Target: 8.4 Billion

It would take a 2% increase in the GST or a similar reduction in services to pay for that foreign aid.

I wonder how much support Geldolf and Live 8 would get if he ran around telling Canadians to demand that politicians raise the GST to 9% in order to pay for aid to Africa.

[cybercoma]

We have heard a lot of talk in the media about how Canada should increase its aid to Africa to 0.7% of GDP. I knew this number is deceptive because federal government budget (where the aid would have to come from) is a some fraction of the GDP. So I did some number crunching:

Canada GDP 2004:  1,216 Billion

Federal Gov't Revenue 2004: 186.2 Billion

GST Revenue 2004: 28.3 Billion

0.7% GDP Target: 8.4 Billion

It would take a 2% increase in the GST or a similar reduction in services to pay for that foreign aid.

I wonder how much support Geldolf and Live 8 would get if he ran around telling Canadians to demand that politicians raise the GST to 9% in order to pay for aid to Africa.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2% increase in GST or 2% reduction in services so money can go to political oppressors who won't use the money to better their people's lives.

[Chungwawema]

2% increase in GST or 2% reduction in services so money can go to political oppressors who won't use the money to better their people's lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not really an accurate, or fair, statement. Many of the "oppressors" are quite honest leaders trying to help their countries. Not all, but many.

[cybercoma]

2% increase in GST or 2% reduction in services so money can go to political oppressors who won't use the money to better their people's lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not really an accurate, or fair, statement. Many of the "oppressors" are quite honest leaders trying to help their countries. Not all, but many.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You see, here in lies the problem. Should I be forced by my government to send my hard earned money to those "oppressors" so the "honest leaders" can get their cut?

Or maybe we should just rely on charity to handle these issues and if I (or anyone else for that matter) wants to send their hard earned money over there, they can CHOOSE to.

[August1991]

2% increase in GST or 2% reduction in services so money can go to political oppressors who won't use the money to better their people's lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not really an accurate, or fair, statement. Many of the "oppressors" are quite honest leaders trying to help their countries. Not all, but many.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many? Name several. You will be very hard-pressed to find even a few African leaders who can be charaterized as honest and competent. One is inclined to believe that foreign aid is part of the problem.

BTW, the 0.7% refers to all foreign aid, not just African. It is an entirely arbitrary number. Canada, at present, has ongoing foreign aid projects in China, a country which has sufficient money to launch satellites and have nuclear weapons.

[Argus]

2% increase in GST or 2% reduction in services so money can go to political oppressors who won't use the money to better their people's lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not really an accurate, or fair, statement. Many of the "oppressors" are quite honest leaders trying to help their countries. Not all, but many.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Name a few then.

You know, it seems to me that all this aid to Africa has managed to do is to perpetuate a system of brutal thugocracies for nearly half a century. Africa is worse off now then it was under colonial rule, worse off then it was in the seventies. Short of re-colonization to put things right I'm beginning to wonder if Africans wouldn't be better off, in the long run, if we pulled all aid and just let the natural process of coups against tyranny unfold. I mean, without aid making life a little tolerable for the people these governments probably wouldn't be able to last as long as they do.

[Guest eureka]

Perhaps Africa is worse off now because it really gets very little foreign aid. As I, and Black Dog particularly, noted in other discussions, much of the aid to Africa is tied aid. Almost all American aid is. That is, it is tied to trade and the trade is dictated to be beneficial to the "donators."

Much of Africa is not allowed to develop its own agricultural potential, for an example of a large part of the problem, because of subsidies to agriculture in the West. It is forced, instead, to concentrate on what we want it to provide and not compete. Aid is often contingent on that and it lacks the financial means to break from the mold. The World Bank is merely a tool of the interests that will not help Africa out of the cycle of poverty.

Colonialism left Africa with a legacy of unnatural geopolitical structures. There were few nations inside the boundaries that were drawn. Africa has been going through the tortuous process of nation building within these boundaries and with the disparate groups that have been forced together. That is not easy and may be at the root of all the "oppressive dictatorships"

The least we can do is to help clean up the mess we created. 0.7% of GDP which is, as August noted, not by a long way the amount that goes to Africa, is not too much to spare. Particularly when much is returned with interest and it is also an investment in world peace and prosperity. I wonder how much it costs us to not aid Africa to climb out of its misery.

[Argus]

Perhaps Africa is worse off now because it really gets very little foreign aid. As I, and Black Dog particularly, noted in other discussions, much of the aid to Africa is tied aid. Almost all American aid is. That is, it is tied to trade and the trade is dictated to be beneficial to the "donators."

Much of Africa is not allowed to develop its own agricultural potential, for an example of a large part of the problem, because of subsidies to agriculture in the West. It is forced, instead, to concentrate on what we want it to provide and not compete.

Granted it can't export a lot of things due to the subsidies. But not everything is subsidised. Most of the subsidies are tied to the competition between Europe and The US, and Europe doesn't grow everything Africa can grow. Besides, even if they couldn't export, if they just grew enough for their own people they'd be a long way towards sustainability. But many African countries can't even do that. Look at Zimbabwe. Amazing resources and one idiotic and corrupt leader has run it into the ground. Its people starve in the one of the world's greatest agricultural areas.

Aid is often contingent on that and it lacks the financial means to break from the mold. The World Bank is merely a tool of the interests that will not help Africa out of the cycle of poverty.

Canada's aid is similarly tied into our interests, or more accurately, the interests of the Liberals, and those companies which get the contracts to supply overpriced goods for CIDA due to their donations to the Liberal party. But while this weakens the aid it still does provide goods for free. If it were used properly, instead of to fatten Swiss bank accounts, it would help considerably more.

Colonialism left Africa with a legacy of unnatural geopolitical structures. There were few nations inside the boundaries that were drawn. Africa has been going through the tortuous process of nation building within these boundaries and with the disparate groups that have been forced together. That is not easy and may be at the root of all the "oppressive dictatorships"

All that is true, except the part about nation building. I see no sign of construction going on over there. And the rapid turnover of colonies into nations was probably much more damaging. Let's not forget to lay responsibility for that at the feet of those wide-eyed idealists of the left who insisted that European nations divest themselves of their colonies - like now, like instantly, like immediately, whether they were ready or not. Some of those colonies became nations with no more than a handful of college graduates among their population.

The least we can do is to help clean up the mess we created. 0.7% of GDP which is, as August noted, not by a long way the amount that goes to Africa,

Honestly, if I thought it would do any good I'd be in favour. But I don't think it would help in the least. When the foundation is so poorly constructed and so rotten, it really doesn't do much good to put more money into redecorating.

The best thing that could happen for Africa was a giant international commision to redraw the national boundaries. I grant this would raise all kinds of new problems, and probably lead to an assortment of wars and bloodshed and misery for a bit. But I think the new countries would then be far more sustainable and make rapid progress.

Africa is not making progress. It is sinking beneath the weight of its own incompetant and corrupt leadership, and the ignorance of its uneducated citizenry.

As for "the least we can do", hey, I didn't colonise anyone, nor did Canada. And I can think of a lot of places here where eight or ten billion dolalrs would do a hell of a lot of good.

[Netherlands]

2% increase in GST or 2% reduction in services so money can go to political oppressors who won't use the money to better their people's lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not really an accurate, or fair, statement. Many of the "oppressors" are quite honest leaders trying to help their countries. Not all, but many.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our country's recent foreign aid plans aims to direct funding to these countries:

In Africa: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Zambia.

Other: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cambodia, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, and Vietnam.

According to Freedom House [http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2005/table2005.pdf]

6 of these nations are considered free; 15 partly free, and 4 as not free. These last four are Cambodia, Pakistan, Rwanda, and Vietnam. The only one of these nations that I would question giving aid to is Vietnam. But all the rest are probably very good choices, as I think our efforts will both boost people's daily lives, and strengthen their freedom and democracy.

[cybercoma]

Subsidized farming is a problem that hurts many nations around the world. I can tell you with certainty that even we as Canadians are affected. In Chatham, Ontario Commercial Alcohols Inc. produces ethanol and other such chemicals which are derived from corn. They buy their corn from the United States at a fraction of the cost they can get it for right here in Southwestern Ontario. The irony of it all is that the distillery is practically located right in a corn field, but they can't purcahse that corn because it costs more than the stuff they buy from the states.

This is what happens when governments interfere in the free-markets and economies.

[Guest eureka]

The point is, Argus, that those African countries - particularly African - are forced into being one crop nations. The crop is the one that we want them to produce. They cannot diversify or do anything to ensure other than subsistence levels of need foods which the West provides to them often. That they must buy from the West out of the oddly named aid monies.

Frequently, the food we do supply is produced at a highet cost than it would be if produced locally. Subsidies are a major factor in that.

Corn is a good example and Cybercoma's case makes it apparent. Except that in Africa, they cannot grow it because we will not let them.

Zimbabwe is, as you say, an example of a country gone bad. It could have prospered in the way that South Africa did though prosper is a shaded word for there. But, there are many reasons for that besides a corrupt dictator. The legacy of colonialism plays its part in tribal rivalries.

[mcqueen625]

We have a promise in place from about 15 year's ago to eliminate poverty inside Canada by year 2000. It is now 2005 and one of the growing industries in Canada is Food Banks and Soup Kitchens. Poverty has increased instead of decreased, and here we have Bob Gildof ordering Martin to do something for Africa that Martin has been unwilling to tackle right here inside Canada. Yes it is a shame that people are starving in many parts of the world, not just Africa, and they are not getting the help they need, but the fact is that in many of these countries the aid that is now flowing to them is being used up by the government's and military of those countries to suppress their own peoples.

The United States just sent another 50,000 tons of food to North Korea, and the concern they have is that it get to the starving people instead of the dictator's and their military who control the country. Much of the world aid that has flowed to this country and many other third world countries has been used to prop up totalitarian government's and to develop weapons of Mass destruction.

Allowing multinational corporations to outsource jobs to these third world countries has done little to eleviate the poverty, because these corporations pay little or no wages, and are then allowed to ship the finished goods backminto places like Canada to reap exhorbitant profits.

[The Terrible Sweal]

There are four men:

Samuel: a very very poor man

Joe: a man on the cusp of poverty

Paul: a man fairly well off, entrusted by Joe to care for Joe's interests

Bobo: a fantastically rich man self-appointed to look after Samuel's interests.

Bobo demands that Paul take more from Joe to give it to Samuel, while both Paul and Bobo will retain their money.

Does anyone think there is any morality in that?

[Argus]

There are four men:

Samuel:  a very very poor man

Joe:  a man on the cusp of poverty

Paul: a man fairly well off, entrusted by Joe to care for Joe's interests

Bobo:  a fantastically rich man self-appointed to look after Samuel's interests.

Bobo demands that Paul take more from Joe to give it to Samuel, while both Paul and Bobo will retain their money.

Does anyone think there is any morality in that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you're saying it's wrong for those fabulously rich rock stars like Geldorf to insist the government tax me more to give money to Africans?

[The Terrible Sweal]

There are four men:

Samuel: a very very poor man

Joe: a man on the cusp of poverty

Paul: a fantastically rich man, entrusted by Joe to care for Joe's interests

Bobo: a fantastically rich man self-appointed to look after Samuel's interests.

Bobo demands that Paul take more from Joe to give it to Samuel, while both Paul and Bobo will retain their money.

Does anyone think there is any morality in that?

[Argus]

There are four men:

Samuel:  a very very poor man

Joe:  a man on the cusp of poverty

Paul: a fantastically rich man, entrusted by Joe to care for Joe's interests

Bobo:  a fantastically rich man self-appointed to look after Samuel's interests.

Bobo demands that Paul take more from Joe to give it to Samuel, while both Paul and Bobo will retain their money.

Does anyone think there is any morality in that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How did Joe get to be fantastically rich so fast? He was only well-off a little while ago.

[Technocrat]

thats pretty creative TTS

Im pretty sick of the Bobo guy... in fact im not sure im a fan of Paul either. If they are so interested in sending aid they should organize a celebrity boxing match. Id pay to see those two duke it out.

[August1991]

There are four men:

Samuel:  a very very poor man

Joe:  a man on the cusp of poverty

Paul: a fantastically rich man, entrusted by Joe to care for Joe's interests

Bobo:  a fantastically rich man self-appointed to look after Samuel's interests.

Bobo demands that Paul take more from Joe to give it to Samuel, while both Paul and Bobo will retain their money.

Does anyone think there is any morality in that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sweal shows once again a marked inability to depart from zero-sum thinking.

The Sam, Bobo example above is based on a fixed pie which Sweal suggests is being "unfairly" divided.

How about this example:

Ringo: a very lazy man who gets up at 2 pm to go fishing.

Paul: a sort of lazy man who gets up at 10 am to go fishing

John: an early riser who's fishing at 6 am.

At the end of the day, Ringo has no fish and so John takes fish from Paul and gives them to Ringo. The next day, Paul decides to watch TV rather than go fishing.

[i'm sure Belinda would be proud. Maybe I should have worked in the pie angle to the anecdote. "Ringo: a very lazy baker...."]