With Live 8 around the corner

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Will it work?

If not, what will help the Third World?

Can it be helped?

Your thoughts?....

 

I say, yes Live 8 will have enough impact to at least take a significant bite out of Third World debt, albeit if not instantly. Canada has bumped up its Aid in the most recent budget, but it hasn't quite taken effect yet because of all of the squabbling in the House of Commons. I imagine that's little comfort to Africa. I digress.

 

The key is to offer a helping hand, not a hand out. Practical help. Give em a hand building wells, farming advice, build schools and hospitals or pave roads. Hell, pay teacher's salaries and give free primary and secondary education. There's lots of sensible ways to make the world poverty free.

 

That's perfect segway into my train of thought here: A little goes a long way. Everyone could live comfortably on 50 grand a year. Before I get scoffed at, consider how much of the world lives on less than a dollar a day.

 

I currently donate to World Vision, which doesnt outright give a cheque to my sponsored child, but helps them practically, with a smattering of the ideas I mentioned above.

 

Ultimately, yes, the world could be poverty free by the time my kids have kids, or even before that.

 

The argument of "Why should we help those corrupt governments" is, while not without some merit, a little bit passe, IMO.

 

 

 

That's my nickel with 3 pennies back.

[MrRant 0]

My belief is to cure poverty and such here and take care of your own citizens before helping out others.

 

All the money we give to Kumbala could be used on a child here as well.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

My opinion is that a bunch of guys getting on a stage and playing music does not make the world's problems disappear. If those guys gave up some money, well, it probably still wouldn't happen, but it would be progress from the first scenario.

 

Reminds me of that Sarah M. "World on Fire" video. "$35 that could have been spent on renting a better video camera for the weekend are instead going to be used to teach children to read in Zimbabwe." Well, that's nice, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DAMN ROYALTIES

[MrRant 0]

And everyone kept telling me to eat everything on my plate because kids were starving in Africa.

 

I did.

 

And now you are telling me they are still starving?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Yeah, lets save starving kids in Africa so they can grow up to be email scammers and take even more of peoples money.

[RepoMan 0]

I think Live 8 will help a very, very little bit, but it's worth the effort. Did they announce who's playing the Toronto date yet because I'm thinking about going to that.

[cbacon 0]

This article makes some good points

 

“Bob Geldof and Bono may have screwed it for the world’s poorest countries. These are two well-meaning guys, and they certainly deserve kudos for the attention they have helped to focus on the plight of the world’s poor. But when they offered flippant sound bites last week about plans to relieve some of the debt of poor nations, they set back the path to economic justice by huge strides. It must be assumed they did not do so deliberately, but their fame and their ability to buttonhole the leaders of the wealthiest nations may have clouded their judgment enough to prevent them from remembering that they are spokespeople, not experts.

 

On June 11, the finance ministers of seven of the world’s leading industrial nations, which includes Canada (the G8, minus Russia), agreed to write off the debt of the 18 poorest countries (14 of them in Africa). It is expected that a further nine African countries may qualify for similar relief over the next 12 to 18 months. Although the agreement still needs formal approval at the G8 Summit to be held in Scotland in early July, it sounds like good news and a noble humanitarian gesture. But is it? And what is actually to be written off?

 

Anyone with even a simple grasp of the issues will recognize that the conditions attached to the alleged debt relief are actually more onerous than the debt they relieve. When Geldof pronounced the deal as “a victory for millions” and Bono described it as “a little piece of history”, they set back by large strides the hard work that has been done round the world by those fighting to end poverty. For those workers know, even if Geldof and Bono don’t — or didn’t remember — that the enforced economic liberalization and privatization are not designed to ease third world debt, they are designed to open further lucrative investment opportunities for the West in a form of econo-colonialism. Geldof and Bono are running the risk that they will defuse the political campaign toward global justice and relegate any aid or relief to sporadic philanthropy.”

 

[…]

 

"The agenda of the Western world is to embrace capitalism, solely for the benefit of the Western world. Any measures presently being announced to help end poverty are merely the reaction to vigorous criticism of those who fight to end poverty. Through the work of elderly rock stars and many others, poverty has remained high on the agenda of the world’s richest nations but their efforts to address the issue should be seen for what they are: the callous lies of a group who are looking to get heat off their backs, and in a way that they can make even more money from someone else’s misery.

 

Nothing announced by the G7 ministers, and touted by Bono and Geldof, is going to make the lives of the poor one jot better. It is estimated by many economic experts that the West actually stands to gain significantly greater wealth by enforcing the IMF and World Bank ‘conditionalities’ than writing down the debt will ever cost them.

 

If the leaders of the Western nations were serious about easing the plight of the world’s poorest, they would, as a minimum:

 

• drop all debt without conditions for the poorest of the poor, and not just part of it

 

• stop the IMF and the World Bank from imposing so-called ‘free market policies’

 

• stop the heavily subsidized dumping of products and produce in the poor countries

 

• stop Western nations and multinationals from pumping profit out of the poor nations

 

• use the hundreds of billions spent on arms to really deal with the causes of poverty.

 

Anything less is just the same old nonsense, and brings us one step closer to that day when the poor are not going to take it any more.”

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm actually going to respond to that post because it actually started off well until somewhere around the half-way point.

 

• use the hundreds of billions spent on arms to really deal with the causes of poverty.

 

I guaran-damn-tee you that once those third world countries are on their feet and are self sufficient and generating their own income, the first thing they're going to do is acquire weapons to protect what they have.

 

"MAKE FOOD NOT ARMS" is a fun message, but only in that ideal "I'd like to buy the world a Coke and sing in harmony" way. It never really quite works out like that, though.

[Ravenbomb 0]

isn't this the thing that Pink Floyd are reuniting for?

[DARRYLXWF 0]

For those workers know, even if Geldof and Bono don’t — or didn’t remember — that the enforced economic liberalization and privatization are not designed to ease third world debt, they are designed to open further lucrative investment opportunities for the West in a form of econo-colonialism. Geldof and Bono are running the risk that they will defuse the political campaign toward global justice and relegate any aid or relief to sporadic philanthropy.

 

The author probably doesn't realise that sub-sahara Africa has the most closed economies in the world. It's not my impression that economic liberalisation is the key factor hurting them.

 

The idea that economic liberalisation being a corporate conspiracy to help the rich and crush the poor is an idea that should have died with the Soviet Union. Especially considering what has happened to the Asian Tiger economies.

 

Nothing announced by the G7 ministers, and touted by Bono and Geldof, is going to make the lives of the poor one jot better. It is estimated by many economic experts that the West actually stands to gain significantly greater wealth by enforcing the IMF and World Bank ‘conditionalities’ than writing down the debt will ever cost them.

 

Conditionalities, or structural reform hasn't been affective primarily because the African governments don't want to implement them. Human nature dictates that when your forced to do a job that you don't want to do, your going to half ass it.

 

There are hundreds of examples of such reforms that have failed ONLY because the governments have made them fail, not because they don't work.

 

If the leaders of the Western nations were serious about easing the plight of the world’s poorest, they would, as a minimum:

 

• drop all debt without conditions for the poorest of the poor, and not just part of it

 

Here's something to sleep on. Its been estimated that an increase in a country's cancellation of debt of 1% GDP, from 1979 to 1997, has resulted on average in a 0.34% increase in that countries burden of debt. The reason? The main one is that government revenue has been wasted by most highly indebted countries, due to corruption, and the expectation that more debt will be cancelled in the future.

 

 

• stop the heavily subsidized dumping of products and produce in the poor countries

 

This is so ironic that it makes the author look like a fucking moron. Stopping subsidies IS 'free market policies'. Every Free Market economist has CALLED for the end of subsidies.

 

 

• stop Western nations and multinationals from pumping profit out of the poor nations

 

The best example of Western Nations doing this is through their farm subisidies and their manufacturing tariffs, which prevent third world countries being able to export goods. Unfortunately, this author doesn't believe in lowering tariffs..so we can forget that idea.

 

• use the hundreds of billions spent on arms to really deal with the causes of poverty.

 

Fact: Post World War 2, Africa has received the equivalent of 6 Marshall Plans. Look how that's helped them.

 

This article does achieve one thing though. It's so utterly wrong that it come close to being offensive. That's quite a remarkable achievement. I mean, really, I'm actually in shock.

 

Because while Zimbabwe President Robert Magube is fucking bulldozing down peoples homes, and REFUSING to let people farm on vacant land during their worst period of STARVATION...we have marxist fuckheads like this piece of shit writing something that was put to death 15 years ago, advocating the very thing which is keeping them in this mess.

 

Unbelievable.

[dubq 0]

My belief is to cure poverty and such here and take care of your own citizens before helping out others.

 

All the money we give to Kumbala could be used on a child here as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's a tricky bag. We live in a society where no foreign aide would bring down some serious political pressures on a government. I agree with your sentiment - MOST if not NEARLY ALL funding should go to poverty stricken citizens of ones OWN country, but I do also believe that SOME funding should go to the other countries who are down in the dumps. Now, the question of it making an impact and actually getting TO them is a whole other can of worms...

[SuperJerk 0]

I have to ask...

 

 

Who the hell is Bob Geldof?

[MrRant 0]

I believe the prick that organized it and Live Aid.

[SuperJerk 0]

I believe the prick that organized it and Live Aid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought you were being glib, but I looked him up and that's pretty much the only things he's ever done.

 

 

That, and play the lead in the movie "Pink Floyd: The Wall".

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Note: Linda McCartney, before she died, transferred her estate handlings to New York to Avoid the 40% death tax rate in England. That alone equates to near 100% of the first LiveAid concert charity donation of 50 Million

 

Madonna said at Live8 : Start a Revolution! Hey Madonna, do you think Africa needs more revolutions. I mean, its had how many in the last 40 years. A couple hundred more, and hell, toss in a few more genocides, couldn't hurt.

 

Corrupt governments deserve no aid.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

And to note from above. Donating money to governments who do not have their fiscal and institutional houses together will not help anything in the long run.

 

Only by institutional reform can Africa be helped.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

And Finally, DarrylXWF did an excellent job covering the issues on a point by point basis.

 

Face facts. Free markets work, if they're given a chance when paired with institutional reforms. Look at Asia.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Yep.You're right.

 

There's what, 35 or 40 wars in Africa?

Free markets are good to a point.

 

Having said that, erasing debt will get the ball rolling.

I do sincerly believe extreme poverty will be a thing of the past by the time I die, assuming I live to be 55 or 60, which is still a gamble.

[MrRant 0]

Maybe we should concentrate on OUR debt first instead of adding to it?

[Guest Ransome]

Note: Linda McCartney, before she died, transferred her estate handlings to New York to Avoid the 40% death tax rate in England.  That alone equates to near 100% of the first LiveAid concert charity donation of 50 Million

 

Madonna said at Live8 : Start a Revolution!  Hey Madonna, do you think Africa needs more revolutions.  I mean, its had how many in the last 40 years.  A couple hundred more, and hell, toss in a few more genocides, couldn't hurt.

 

Corrupt governments deserve no aid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You could at least include the source you stole those comments from, considering it's practically a word-for-word lift: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...7/05/do0502.xml

 

To whoever asked, Bob Geldof was in a band called the Boomtown Rats, characterised mostly for their biggest hit single 'I Don't Like Mondays' (#1 hit in the UK, never released as a single in US). Although, since starting BandAid in 1984 and LiveAid in 1985, it's (understandably) almost impossible to separate him from the African aid cause, which is probably why you haven't heard of him as a musician.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Eh, if I got it word for word, then I'm pretty damn psychic. I heard it on the radio.

 

You know, if you can't say anything nice...