The reason these people have more kids is so that there is someone to look after them when they get old. There's no welfare state where they live, they have kids to ensure their own long lives. You would do exactly the same in a similar situation.
But but but in UK you know whom also hump like bunnies and yet they are all on benefits and have welfare state. Looking at that I would have to disagree.
This thread has drifted quite a bit. It was originally about 'foreign aid', meaning UK Government Overseas Aid. Private organisations like OxFam are charities; money is donated for charitable and humanitarian reasons, and people are free to decide whether to donate or not. UK Overseas Aid is an entirely different matter, and is money spent in pursuance of British interests and policies; charity has very little to do with it.
I do not know if it drifted that far Pete. Overseas Aid is given to same countries that receive private charity aid for the same reasons. If it acts like a duck, quacks like one it is one (or how ever you say it ) Also your description of foreign aid sounds very much like EU membership. You pay in and a result of that you indirectly get money back to your own economy (no import duties, subsidies and so on).
I don't think it always works like that though, e.g. "Trademark Southern Africa, intended to boost commerce, was swiftly shut down by Mrs Greening after watchdog found officials earning more than £100,000 and cash being administered by Zimbabwean regime. Cost: £100m." (from this article) Stop wasting aid budget on wealthy countries, ministers told - Telegraph
Back in the 70s I had two friends that worked for an NGO........the simple side of the story is this.... ....they went to one area in Africa (can't recall which country) and 'taught' several village groups about crop planting, irrigation and harvesting.... ....tractors and machinery were provided by the NGO and the more educated villagers were instructed in their use. The villagers appeared to be on course to sort themselves out and my acquaintances eventually left the area. When they returned two years later, the tractors and machinery stood exactly where they had left them, rusting away. The conclusion drawn was that the villagers were lazy and weren't prepared to help themselves, but were ready to accept effort from others.
I have covered that before but apparently letting all thatmoney get wasted is ok because that is the only way some of that money willgo back to UK (or any other country giving foreign aid). It is a joke nothing else. Stop the aid, those people will have an option to move their asses or die hungry. I know hwich option they will choose.
Africa is famously littered with rusting machinery. NGOs turn up at a poor village somewhere, supply a set of fancy tractors/harvesters/pumps/4x4s, and then clear off. The machinery needs spare parts, tyres, oil, etc plus skilled maintenance - all of which cost money the villagers do not have. The NGOs then blame the villagers for being "lazy". I prefer the approach of Riders for Health [ http://www.riders.org/ ] which is to supply not only bikes for rural transport, but spare parts, fuel, oil, tyres and chains for them. And train the users not just how to ride them, but how to maintain and repair them regularly. The Riders for Health bikes are never abandoned to rust, they are used hard and kept well. Another illustrative example is Peugeot who supplied a great number of 504s to Africa, many of which are still going strong decades later. Why? Because Peugeot kept supplying 504s to Africa until 2005, although the model had been superseded in Europe in 1983, so spares and servicing are still readily available today. Few other manufacturers can be bothered with this.
The Sweaties are fucked! No £££ and no Europe according to Manual Barrosa... What are they going to do?... Invade York again?? Nice country, but seems they have failed politically!
i suspect the subject is just too complicated to sum up meaningfully in a few lines on a thread. Whole countries and governments struggle to get their aid policy right. There are however a lot of innocent and helpless people out there for whom aid is the difference between life and death, and whatever the faults with the current system it would take a very uncaring attitude to turn that off.
a good mate of mine is south African, he always wanted to drive back to south Africa he will do it in a land rover or Toyota as you only have to walk a mile or two in any direction to find an abandoned one for spares. p.s. any garage owners out there contemplating taking on a south african i would do it, these guys can fix anything.
Sorry Pete..........I did say I was giving the simple side of the story...in the case I refer to, the NGOs supplied everything that was needed........even some cabins that were supposed to house the spares etc.....when they returned after the two years, the parts were still stacked outside in a decrepit condition, while families from within the village had moved into the cabins. The tractors and machinery hadn't been moved from where the NGOs left off. In this case I suspect the conclusion was correct, but as I don't know any other personnel from NGOs, I can't comment further.
I think a lot of "aid" over the years has been wasted. It's the old "give a man a fish...teach a man to fish" scenario, the most successful aid is about helping and educating the poorest third world countries not just chucking supplies off the back of a lorry.
100% agree and that is the only aid anyone should be providing in regards of food, shelter and water. Exception obviously being natural disasters (yearly floods or bush fires not certain if htat counts). Those countries been receiving aid for years now and it is clear that they are happy to get stuff for free. Cut it, yes initially they will suffer but htey will haveto act to help them selfs initially. Right now they are taking us all for a ride.
India has just unveiled the largest statue in the world that cost £330m to build. If there ever is a case for ditching overseas aid, this is it. Fekking criminal. Andy
one for the brexit thread? Indeed. Most of the Overseas Aid comes straight back to the UK because the aid is used to pay for exports of goods and services from UK to the aid recipient, or salaries of UK workers. Thus the Overseas Aid budget is mainly a contrivance for indirectly subsidising UK industries and UK employment. Direct subsidies would be against WTO rules, but "Aid" can be represented as a virtue. Obviously governments cannot be frank about what Overseas Aid really is, or what it is for, because that would give the game away and it would have to stop. This is why all parties, including the Tories, are in favour of Overseas Aid and opposed to reducing it - they understand its hidden purpose very well. Scrapping overseas aid would be shooting ourselves in the foot bigtime. But that doesn't stop some people, who have not the slightest understanding how it works, from proposing it. . Food: agriculture in both Europe and USA is heavily subsidised, and when overseas aid is sent in the form of food what happens is that the food is purchased in UK/Europe/USA and shipped across the world to the recipients. This provides a big market for agricultural producers, who always lobby strongly for food aid to be continued and expanded. If food aid was cut, agriculture would be greatly damaged - "shooting ourselves in the foot". You say "...better to give that money directly back to business ...". Not possible. Free trade is only practicable when the participating countries agree NOT to subsidise their businesses directly, and that is what they have agreed. Giving money directly to businesses as a blatant subsidy would wreck free trade agreements, so it is not allowed. As I explained, one of the principal purposes of overseas aid is to effect a concealed subsidy which side-steps the free trade agreements - for which purpose it is pretty effective. Overseas aid has other policy purposes too, such as rewarding allies, influencing government policy in developing countries,, outbidding other donor countries, etc. Again, giving all that up, just because there are floods in UK at present, would be beyond stupidity.
