BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Third World Aid - Practice and Philosophies

  
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:41 / 15.05.03
Elsewhere, Leap said this about ways to help the Third World:

Off the top of my head it would probably be a 10 year programme to educate the disenfranchised population, of which ever country(s) we had shagged over, in the means of self support (agricultural college, animal husbandry, first aid, basic “DIY” skills, basic food cleanliness, basic sanitation knowledge, family planning) combined with a parallel support programme to construct water access and an efficient sewage treatment system that are all sustainable by the country in question without recourse to external ‘aid’. I remember hearing of a “rent-a-goat” scheme (buy a goat, lend it to one family, when it has had a kid that family keep the kid (and all of that kids offspring, to breed with neighbours in the scheme, and so increase their herds) and the older goat goes on to another family, and so on) which I would happily support but cannot find (gotta avoid charity scams to).

Combine that with moves like

i. not ripping them off through "international debt repayments"

ii not dumping out-of-date medicine there (under cover of "aid") in order to avoid paying "decommissioning fees" over here

iii. not selling them weapons beyond basic hunting rifles / shotguns

iv. not insisting they become part of the Globalist Empire of western trade Monopolies

v. not buying 'carbon rights' off them so that we can continue our own pollution levels

vi. not using them as a source of sweat shop labour that keeps their populations in a state of eternal servitude, but actually encourage self-sufficiency and local trade.

This could be a Switchboard thread, and might end up moving there, but I'm also interested in the philosophy here. Is the idea of helping the Third World in these terms patronising? Is it just a matter of making amends for the damage we did earlier as imperial powers? Is it a matter of self-interest, or necessity?
 
 
SMS
01:22 / 16.05.03
Some principles I think are sound:

Do no harm. This is a principle I have come to appreciate more and more as I see it ignored on the smaller scale.

Teach a man to fish. In politics, this is especially true. You never know when funding for a given program is going to be cut. You know how much money you have now, and that's about it. You know which party controls the government now. It is especially true for America, as well, because we are a country with very real isolationist tendencies.

Do not risk the structure of your own country. You cannot redistribute wealth if you are not creating wealth.

Pay attention to the local needs of the people you want to help. Not every group requires the same kind of aid. We cannot afford to be this lazy in our decisions.

Make sure those who want to help have an opportunity to help.
 
 
Leap
09:07 / 16.05.03
Haus –

Is it a matter of self-interest, or necessity?

Both.

We will never be able to undo the environmentally and socially damaging practices we currently rely on until we undo our reliance on the extremes of wealth created by the 20/80 trade split. Eg: We sit here discussing online the fate of a world where 2/3rds of the population have never even used a phone and most probably never will as the wealth that supports our lifestyle comes at the cost of third world poverty (which is a price we all pay willingly because we would rather have our expensive coffee and broadband than let them have dignified lives that are not lived as the sweatshop providers of our wealth).

Face it, slavery exists today and we in the west live in luxury by its means. Anyone that tells you otherwise is either lying through their teeth or woefully unaware that the “buoyancy” our economy is built upon shitting in the turd world.

This is where my politics get real weird. I find myself an ally of the left (!) in its drive for economic justice (but not its methods!).
 
 
Quantum
09:38 / 16.05.03
So are we aiming for global equality? That leaves everybody poor...

Western aid in the third world is fine and of course a good thing, teach a man to fish, give him a goat, but even if we impoverish ourselves the third world will still want progress towards current western standards. They want what we have, whether we have it or not.
What about China? Or other regimes that don't share our liberal politics? The only way to get global equality is to sacrifice nations and have either one world government or none at all. I'm against that.

I favour a global redistribution of individual wealth (top 5% give massively to bottom 5% for example) which requires the least sacrifice (the richest people are still the richest) for the most benefit (if Bill Gates gave his fortune to a million people living on a dollar a day they'd effectively get a massive cash windfall each, which they could spend on goats, fishing rods etc.)
This is not a new idea, it's basically the taxation system we have nationally applied globally. It maintains national boundaries and identities, the standard of living for everyone is either increased dramatically or unaffected (the difference in lifestyle between having one million or ten million dollars is negligible) and it alleviates the disparity prevalent today.
So a maximum and minimum wealth in a sense.

(PS I hope it's taken as read that 3rd world debt should be abolished)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:11 / 16.05.03
I'm not sure it *is* taken as read - presumably the banks who are currently managing the debt, for example, could give you very good reasons why the debts should be honoured. Which strikes me as self-interested, short-termist and ultimately bollocks, admittedly, because if I loaned somebody an amount I could afford to write off and found that they could not afford to pay even the interest on that loan, I might be minded to annul the loan. On the other hand, the banks can with some justice say that the countries knew the terms when they signed up.

Perhaps a compromise might be something like: interest on the loans is frozen (after all, in many cases the loan itself is never actually being repaid, just the interest on it). The loan is restructured so the basic sum, adjusted for inflation, can be paid off over a set period. Wealthy nations take over those payments on the understanding that for every dollar they pay off the government of the nation whose debt it is invests a dollar in infrastructure or humanitarian aid.

Quantum raises the question of taxing the rich massively. Tax is an interesting one, as the criticism is raised that high taxation reduces the incentive to make money. As far as I can tell this doesn't seem to work; the people I knwo who have real tax problems are those on the border between the lowest and next-lowest tax brackets, for example. But Bill Gates, more than some, could claim that his personal and corporate fortune comes from gouging the wealthy nations, so why should he take the fall for the nations the wealthy nations have grown fat from gouging in turn?
 
 
Leap
11:57 / 16.05.03
Quantum –

So are we aiming for global equality? That leaves everybody poor...

No. But perhaps a system of trade that allows differences in wealth without creating the huge accumulations that come from the current system. How would we define poor? The comfortable of 1850 would be poor by today’s standards, yet their level of wealth (for example) could be possible as a general standard for society to rest upon. Would that make us “poor” (we would still have more wealth than the third world currently has, and we would allow them to be free of our interference)? That is just an idea though (I am unsure as to what “historical” level of wealth could be achieved as a general standard).

Western aid in the third world is fine and of course a good thing, teach a man to fish, give him a goat, but even if we impoverish ourselves the third world will still want progress towards current western standards. They want what we have, whether we have it or not.

Current western standards are only obtainable by ripping off a third world though….so they could not achieve western wealth. We got here on their backs. If we redistribute the wealth we stole from them, the colonialist power will be undone and western hegemony will collapse from this world.

What about China? Or other regimes that don't share our liberal politics? The only way to get global equality is to sacrifice nations and have either one world government or none at all. I'm against that.

Why not local-regional small govts (set up as primarily as “courts of our peers” to adjudicate “differences of opinion” that cannot be settled personally) combined with the agreement of ‘everyone’ to neither seek excessive wealth nor allow others to use us to achieve that for themselves on the understanding that this would stand a pretty damn good chance of keeping things from becoming imperialist/colonialist again?

I favour a global redistribution of individual wealth (top 5% give massively to bottom 5% for example) which requires the least sacrifice (the richest people are still the richest) for the most benefit (if Bill Gates gave his fortune to a million people living on a dollar a day they'd effectively get a massive cash windfall each, which they could spend on goats, fishing rods etc.)

Unfortunately it is the top 5% who would need to give to the bottom 75%, with the top 20% getting their profit from the serious marking up of what the bottom 80% produces - not economically supportable (AFAIA).

This is … basically the taxation system we have nationally applied globally. It maintains national boundaries and identities, the standard of living for everyone is either increased dramatically or unaffected (the difference in lifestyle between having one million or ten million dollars is negligible) and it alleviates the disparity prevalent today.
So a maximum and minimum wealth in a sense.

But it also maintains a heavily institutionalised means of maintenance that, as we know, has a built in tendency to grow into Globalisation (Power tends to corrupt). Again, my personal pref is for such redistribution to be un-necessary by means of instigating a system that does not oppress the third world to begin with

Haus –

I'm not sure it *is* taken as read - presumably the banls

is this an ‘l’ that should be a ‘k’ or is it missing an ‘a’ between the ‘n’ and the ‘l’?

who are currently managing the debt, for example, could give you very good reasons why the debts should be honoured.

I got the opportunity to ask this on the radio 4 version of question time (name?) about 5 years ago, and watched both Norman Lamont and Steven Twigg wriggle uncomfortably before suggesting that the economy would collapse and that it would encourage corruption in the third world (I’m sorry, I though our arms sales and “favoured nation” trading labels already did that!).

Which strikes me as self-interested and ultimately bollocks, admittedly, because if I loaned somebody an amount I could afford to write off and found that they could not afford to pay even the interest on that loan, I might be minded to annul the loan. On the other hand, the banks can with some justice say that the countries knew the terms when they signed up.

And if the banks knew this they had no business making the loans….

Perhaps a compromise might be something like: interest on the loans is frozen (after all, in many cases the loan itself is never actually being repaid, just the interest on it). The loan is restructured so the basic sum, adjusted for inflation, can be paid off over a set period. Wealthy nations take over those payments on the understanding that for every dollar they pay off the government of the nation whose debt it is invests a dollar in infrastructure or humanitarian aid.

Personally, I find the whole notion of “interest” to be offensive. That said, I wonder how much it would cost us to annul the loans?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
12:17 / 16.05.03
The comfortable of 1850 would be poor by today’s standards, yet their level of wealth (for example) could be possible as a general standard for society to rest upon. Would that make us “poor” (we would still have more wealth than the third world currently has, and we would allow them to be free of our interference)? That is just an idea though (I am unsure as to what “historical” level of wealth could be achieved as a general standard).

I don't think looking for a historical level of wealth is going to be very helpful. Your 1850 example is pretty meaningless when you look at it - yes, if they were transplanted to 2003 with exactly the same level of income, they would be extraordinarily poor, but if they were transplanted taking into account inflation, rising wages etc. they'd be, well, comfortable. It would be more appropriate to think about what might constitute a sustainable lifestyle, and then about what it would cost to maintain that, now. The past is, well, past.
 
 
Leap
12:21 / 16.05.03
KKC -

I was seeking an example of "wealth drop" that we would have to accept in order to re-enfranchise the third world and cease relying on screwing them over for our own exceptional wealth. Quantum asked whether we would all have to be "poor" in order to achieve that, and I was simply asking what quantified being "poor"?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:25 / 16.05.03
Near as I remember, and I was very young at the time, the loans were made in the expectation that things would carry on getting better. Then, among other things, the cocoa and coffee markets collapsed, and the problem started, with the banks having extended huge lines of credit and the recipients having no chance of paying them back. Thing is, no bank now, surely, is making plans based on the idea that the loans *will* ever be paid back - was it Brazil that threatened to default completely in the early 80s, thus forcing a restructuring of their debt?

So you now have an unexpected and untenable situation where the nations can't afford to service the debt, but also can't afford *not* to service the debt, because if they don't they risk losing foreign aid. It's a hideous situation, and I'm wondering how much damage restructuring in such a way that the same payments they are making now, or a reduced figure, could actually pay off the debts within the lifetime of a government, say, allowing plans to be made for development but also giving the banks time to factor in the loss of debt repayments.

Can anyone scare up some hard facts on the financial consequences of a structured reduction in or abolition of third world debt? Only I suspect the balances in terms of reinvestment and trade might actually soften the blow a fair bit...
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
12:36 / 16.05.03
Leap, yeah, I gathered that, I just didn't (and don't) think that looking for a direct historical parallel or example is going to work - circumstances have changed too much. If you wanted to work out what constitutes being poor in this country you might take things like the ability to pay rent/utilities bills and supply food and clothing needs as the basis for working out a sort of poverty line - which would vary, obviously, as it would rest at a higher level of income in the South-East than the North-East, for example.
 
 
Quantum
12:43 / 16.05.03
Perhaps a compromise might be something like: interest on the loans is frozen (Haus)
Yup, that would work too, anything to alleviate the massive debt repayment problems. On the one hand I like the idea of paying off their debts for them as aid, but on the other sending actual aid is also sometimes necessary.
Bill Gates, more than some, could claim that his personal and corporate fortune comes from gouging the wealthy nations, so why should he take the fall for the nations the wealthy nations have grown fat from gouging in turn? (Haus)
Let's extend our theoretical Global income tax to include a tithe from ALL Governments (a %) to their poorest subjects (yes subjects not citizens, none of us live in a republic AFAIK) thus taxing wealthy individuals and institutions. That could take the form of aid or whatever but the important part is that the rich get a bit less rich and the poor get significantly less poor.

The comfortable of 1850 would be poor by today’s standards (Leap)
What, a houseful of servants and massive amounts of leisure time?

they could not achieve western wealth. We got here on their backs. If we redistribute the wealth we stole from them, the colonialist power will be undone and western hegemony will collapse from this world. (Leap)
No it won't. The third world have not had their turn at being rich. If we're going to be totally fair then they should be unsustainably rich at our expense for a few centuries. Why should we deny them our level of wealth? Because we know better? Isn't that terribly patronising? They want what we have...

Why not local-regional small govts... (Leap)
Because that would 1) mean our imposing our idea of govt. on them (Regime Change anyone?) and 2) be Leapworld, discussed elsewhere

Unfortunately it is the top 5% who would need to give to the bottom 75%, (Leap)
A misunderstanding here I think due to my poor clarity, I mean the people who own the most wealth (5% own something like 80%) should give most of it to the people who have the least (something like 80% owning 5%) so a few sacrifice their excess to the many who desperately need it. I hope we're saying the same thing.

But it also maintains a heavily institutionalised means of maintenance (Leap)
Not if you just do it once- how about a one off tax of this kind to introduce a little parity, then leave everyone to get on with it? (I can't help but hum 'Where is my Mind?' from the end of Fight Club while thinking this, blow up the banks, that'll teach 'em...)
 
 
Leap
13:05 / 16.05.03
Kit Kat –

It would be more appropriate to think about what might constitute a sustainable lifestyle, and then about what it would cost to maintain that, now. The past is, well, past.

I agree (I was simply seeking to address the whole “what is poor” question by referencing a lower level of wealth as compared to what we have today (the typical comfortable 1850s lifestyle would be poor by today’s standards, but would it be an acceptable level of poor for a non-third-world-screwing economy ). Any ideas on what would be sustainable?

Leap, yeah, I gathered that, I just didn't (and don't) think that looking for a direct historical parallel or example is going to work - circumstances have changed too much. If you wanted to work out what constitutes being poor in this country you might take things like the ability to pay rent/utilities bills and supply food and clothing needs as the basis for working out a sort of poverty line - which would vary, obviously, as it would rest at a higher level of income in the South-East than the North-East, for example.

That would still all be based on an economy that has the to 20% in luxury and the bottom 80% (world population) in poverty. We need to look outside of the current economy and find a basic lifestyle that would be sustainable on a global scale (in terms of population count and density, land area accessibility, environmental sustainability, avoidance of massive differences between rich and poor, non-exploitative trade, and civil liberties). I would hazard a guess that the lifestyle of the typical comfortable 1850s family would be (at least) the base line point (ie: it would not necessitate global slums, with poverty as the standard, in order to undo the severe wealth imbalance (I have no problems with differences in wealth so long as they do not create the high-wealth/master/luxury vrs poverty/slave/sweatshop divide).

Haus –

Can anyone scare up some hard facts on the financial consequences of a structured reduction in or abolition of third world debt? Only I suspect the balances in terms of reinvestment and trade might actually soften the blow a fair bit...

I am seeking them out……

Quantum -

The comfortable of 1850 would be poor by today’s standards (Leap)

What, a houseful of servants and massive amounts of leisure time?

Sorry; my terminology was a bit misleading. I did not mean the middle/upperclasses. By comfortable I meant “non-slum” life rather than the “pride and prejudice” brigade

they could not achieve western wealth. We got here on their backs. If we redistribute the wealth we stole from them, the colonialist power will be undone and western hegemony will collapse from this world. (Leap)

No it won't. The third world have not had their turn at being rich. If we're going to be totally fair then they should be unsustainably rich at our expense for a few centuries. Why should we deny them our level of wealth? Because we know better? Isn't that terribly patronising? They want what we have...

…because they are told to want it and taught no alternative. It is not patronising to “Know better” than someone who is kept in an artifical state of ignorance by a colonialist oppressor [eeek! I sound like “holy grail” ]

Why not local-regional small govts... (Leap)
Because that would 1) mean our imposing our idea of govt. on them (Regime Change anyone?) and 2) be Leapworld, discussed elsewhere

Advocacy through argument is not quite the same as “tank assisted”

A misunderstanding here I think due to my poor clarity, I mean the people who own the most wealth (5% own something like 80%) should give most of it to the people who have the least (something like 80% owning 5%) so a few sacrifice their excess to the many who desperately need it. I hope we're saying the same thing.

But that wealth is created through oppressive commercial practices; it is not sustainable without there being a “third world” to create in a dehumanising environment (being poorly paid in sweatshops and shantytowns).

Not if you just do it once- how about a one off tax of this kind to introduce a little parity, then leave everyone to get on with it?

If you do it just once, the colonialist structure will still be in place and will still rest on cheap production matched by expensive selling (also based in a banking system that works on western national debt that can be written off – what is the US national debt currently at? $6,400,000,000,000+ and climbing at $1,130,000,000 a day! http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ )

(I can't help but hum 'Where is my Mind?' from the end of Fight Club while thinking this, blow up the banks, that'll teach 'em...)

Well, perhaps return them to the gold standard would be a good start……

The current global GDP is: 27,358,000,000,000 (27 TRILLION dollars!)

Divide that by the 6 billion population and you get about $4500 each. That’s four and a half grand WITH an economy based on sweatshops-n-shantytowns and enormous western debt!!!

http://www.geocities.com/combusem/WORLDGDP.HTM
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:06 / 16.05.03
Globalization and its Discontents by Joseph E. Stiglitz covers this in detail. Stiglitz is a Nobel Prizewinner (Economics, natch) and used to run the World Bank. He's also angry and fascinating.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
20:05 / 16.05.03
Anyone read anything by economist Hernando De Soto? His prime thesis is that developing nations and previously Communist nations lack the standardized property laws that allow for loans to be made against a house, permit companies to be broken into a number of publically tradeable stocks, and so forth. The laws that do exist are byzantine--it can take 14 years to obtain legal construction permits in Egypt, for example.

The effect of this is that most capital is 'dead capital', for which ownership can't be proved. De Soto's team estimated that the total value of dead capital real estate owned by the poor was on the order of $9 trillion, which is 46 times the amount loaned by the World Bank in the past 30 years.
 
  
Add Your Reply