The Left Destroys EVERYTHING It Touches

[Age]

I do agree it' s a complex situation of who deserves to be compensated, and by whom. The criterion I choose is the people who are still suffering from European violent theft, and the peoples who still profit from the violent thefts. Africans whose civilisations were destroyed by colonists form a large group who are still in dire need. Also African Americans who from what I read are in need of enrichment and augmented social status so they are not killed by policemen and vigilantes. Obviously the USA has profited from slave labour and so richer Americans and Europeans should be taxed to repair the injuries.

Money will NEVER compensate for STOLEN land, STOLEN freedom NOR STOLEN ways of living.

For ANY one to think, ASSUME, or BELIEVE that money could, then the ONLY ones they are FOOLING are "themselves".

That is true, but money does help to adjust the balance of power.

This is only if one thinks or believes that money, itself, could create an "imbalance of power".

"power" only exits if one BELIEVES they have "power" over "others" or that "others" have power over "them".

Descendants of slaves, and people who live in countries that were despoiled in the past, generally still are deprived of material advantages.

And EVERY one of 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, were deprived of material advantages, relatively.

By the way, EVERY country has been 'despoiled', in the days when this is being written, by 'you', human beings.

The political solution is simple; increase foreign aid.

LOL

Thinking that money, or MORE money, will solve ANY of 'your' human created problems is just pure Fantasy.

The significant main reason "power over others" came into existence, and remained, in the days when this was written, was because 'you', human beings, FOOLISHLY thought or BELIEVED that money, itself, had some sort of actual value.

[Age]

The political solution is simple; increase foreign aid.

Worst solution ever.

Foreign aid makes two things happen very fast: corrupt governments and permanently-dependent poor. That's all.

Africa, since the end of colonialism, has had foreign aid poured into it. And it's worse now than it ever was under colonialism. The whole time, it's had home rule, not foreign rule.

Now, if foreign aid is the answer, how did that happen?

Africa, before colonialism, was much closer to perfection, or a heaven like existence. Foreigners, with money, have ruined just about every culture, which were far more peaceful AND happy before foreigners and money ever came around.

Foreign aid, through money, is leading to the demise of 'you', human beings. If you were NOT destroying other countries and cultures, in the beginning, then so-called "foreign aid" would NOT be "needed" anyway.

[Belinda]

Africa, since the end of colonialism, has had foreign aid poured into it. And it's worse now than it ever was under colonialism. The whole time, it's had home rule, not foreign rule.

That is possible the most ignorant comment I've seen you make.

Nope. Not knowing it is the "ignorant" part.

"The fact that foreign aid as currently practised has failed to achieve its poverty reduction targets in Africa is clear from the data. Over 75% of the world’s poor live in Africa today. In 1970 the figure was 10%. Some forecasts suggest it could rise to 90% by 2030.

Africa is the only continent in the world where official aid inflow outstrips private capital inflow by a large margin. This is problematic since no country in the world has achieved substantial development based on reliance on aid.

This points to the need for reform."

Tingist Mekonnen Melesse, UC Berkeley, 2021

I know shovelling money at the problem is the "Western" way. But you have to respect the people, understand their reality, and know when just injecting more money into the situation actually makes things worse, not better. Since colonialism ended, Africa has been plagued by corrupt governments, tribal civil wars, gangs of thugs, Islamists, drug and jewel traffickers, and all sorts of other types who make money off human suffering. And the vast majority of foreign aid has simply fueled this destructive cycle, instead of helping the poor.

There are much better ways to help, and we know what they are. But mere "foreign aid" programs have proved to be a disaster. They just fuel cycles of corruption and dependency.

If the West really cared, they'd take the time to know that. They don't really care, so they don't bother to know. That's real ignorance.

Reputable charities target needs more accurately than foreign aid, but charities can never be enough whereas foreign aid is a far bigger contribution to overseas development.

But you have to respect the people, understand their reality, and know when just injecting more money into the situation actually makes things worse, not better.

I understand western governments employ social anthropologists and economists to advise on ways and means.

[Immanuel Can]

Reputable charities target needs more accurately than foreign aid,

That's right.

but charities can never be enough whereas foreign aid is a far bigger contribution to overseas development.

No, you'd think that, as the numbers are so much higher. But actually, that's totally false.

Again, as Melesse says above, "no country in the world has achieved substantial development based on reliance on aid." None. Nada. Zip. It's never worked.

So you have to ask yourself, what's better: less money, but it actually gets to the poor, or more money, but it goes into the pockets of the leaders, the rich, and those who take bribes?

Can there be any doubt it's the first, not the second?

I understand western governments employ social anthropologists and economists to advise on ways and means.

Heh. I hate to disillusion you, but you really have to meet these jokers to believe what they're like.

Useless bureaucrats, most of them, concerned only with their own next promotion. They do not understand -- or want to understand -- the people. What they do instead is just impose Western value-systems on people and projects that are not actually in the local interest, and impress their betters in the government so that they can be promoted. Then they get shuffled to a new office in a new country, in which they are just as incompetent and problematic as they were in the last one.

In the developing world, governments do nothing well. Nothing. They are hives of corruption, graft, nepotism, tribalism and theft. And Foreign Aid comes in by way of the bureaucrats, whom the local authorities understand well and can milk for every cent. And you can see it if you see how much money has been flushed into the countries, and how wretched they've remained at the ground level in spite of all that. The money is not getting to the people.

All you have to do to know that's true is go and look.

[simplicity]

When I was growing up in the 60's, the Soviet Union and Communism was on everybody's mind. I remember doing the drills in school [as if hiding under your desk was going to protect oneself from a thermonuclear detonation] and was peripherally aware [in my 7yo mind] that something significant was taking place.

As the sixties marched forward and the miracle of economic growth under Communism was exposed for what it was [essentially a forced labor camp/country], the stories began to trickle out of the USSR's failing economy. Lines for everything, shortages of all kinds of necessities, and a population depressed, alcoholic and not too happy.

Central planning as an economic philosophy [as compared to a market-directed economy] has flaws at every turn and whereas the market can be contaminated, corrupted, and [every other bad thing], it has the potential to provide great abundance for the society that engages. Central planning is a failure not only in practice, but it has no chance to work. Even where it seems to work, it doesn't [it not sustainable], a perfect example being national health care systems.

Wanting something better is a wonderful thing, but not having the educational acumen to understand the potential pitfalls of a collective system has burdened [and murdered] populations around the globe. It is time to put this idea away and work toward a market based economy that can work the best for the most people [and that is by rooting-out as much corruption as is possible].

[mickthinks]

So let me get this straight—your opposition to socialism is a result of what the authorities told you about the USSR when you were a child. Have you considered that that might have been, at least in part, right-wing propaganda?

[mickthinks]

... "no country in the world has achieved substantial development based on reliance on aid." None. Nada. Zip. It's never worked.

The Marshal Plan didn't work? That'll come as a surprise to Europe! https://www.hoover.org/research/marshall-plan

[vegetariantaxidermy]

When I was growing up in the 60's, the Soviet Union and Communism was on everybody's mind. I remember doing the drills in school [as if hiding under your desk was going to protect oneself from a thermonuclear detonation] and was peripherally aware [in my 7yo mind] that something significant was taking place.

As the sixties marched forward and the miracle of economic growth under Communism was exposed for what it was [essentially a forced labor camp/country], the stories began to trickle out of the USSR's failing economy. Lines for everything, shortages of all kinds of necessities, and a population depressed, alcoholic and not too happy.

Central planning as an economic philosophy [as compared to a market-directed economy] has flaws at every turn and whereas the market can be contaminated, corrupted, and [every other bad thing], it has the potential to provide great abundance for the society that engages. Central planning is a failure not only in practice, but it has no chance to work. Even where it seems to work, it doesn't [it not sustainable], a perfect example being national health care systems.

Wanting something better is a wonderful thing, but not having the educational acumen to understand the potential pitfalls of a collective system has burdened [and murdered] populations around the globe. It is time to put this idea away and work toward a market based economy that can work the best for the most people [and that is by rooting-out as much corruption as is possible].

Bullshit propaganda. My father went behind the so-called 'Iron curtain' (to Russia) at a time when almost no Westerners did. He was very impressed with the people, who he described as very dynamic and who loved their country. Not the downtrodden, depressed alcoholics you would like to believe they were. On the other hand he found the US to be a huge disappointment in every way (except for Disneyland, which he found to be exactly as it was protrayed). Unfortunately, Americans are incapable of differentiating a 'people' from a 'govt'. Perhaps it's a case of massively big-noting oneself. The reality is bound to be disappointing. Russians tend to be quiet, modest people in my experience, while Americans....

[Immanuel Can]

... "no country in the world has achieved substantial development based on reliance on aid." None. Nada. Zip. It's never worked.

That'll come as a surprise to Europe!

I had no idea that Europe was postcolonial or located in the Developing World, let alone in Africa. You're full of interesting (and highly imaginary) facts today.

[mickthinks]

I certainly did not realise that when you say

... no country in the world has achieved substantial development based on reliance on aid.

... for you "the world" doesn't include Europe! Or did you mean to say "no country in the non-white world". That's what it's beginning to look like.

But that won't work, see; because you were supposed to be explaining why increasing aid to African countries is a bad thing. Your explanation was it's because aid is always ineffective and even destructive, which does (or would if it were true) have the necessary explanatory power. But "Increasing aid to African countries is bad because aid is ineffective when it's for African countries" doesn't really explain, does it? It's merely a restatement of the questionable thesis in other terms. It's just begging the question.

The question you're now challenged with is; if foreign aid worked when it was for countries of white people, why has it not worked for countries of black people?

[Immanuel Can]

I certainly did not realise that when you say

... no country in the world has achieved substantial development based on reliance on aid.

... for you...

No, it's a quotation. See the quotation marks and the red print? It's a statement by Dr. Tingist Mekonnen Melesse of UC....an Indian-African.

...if foreign aid worked when it was for countries of white people, why has it not worked for countries of black people?

Actually, I've answered that. But if you thought for a second, you'd also know the difference between post-war Europe and foreign aid today, in the Developing World, particularly in Africa.

African politics are extremely corrupt, and any attempt to run aid through the goverment results in massive incompetence, corruption, nepotism and theft. Of course, Africa has been overly influenced by tribalism at the local level and by Socialist utopianism at the highest levels, so that makes sense. Corruption is what you get from both.

On the other hand, ordinary, poor Africans (not the government types) are people of incredible ingenuity and often of great industry as well. And that is why non-governmental "foreign aid" is successful there in ways that the governmental kind never is. It gets around all the corrupt structures of government, and gives help to the enterprising African at the street level.

[Belinda]

Reputable charities target needs more accurately than foreign aid,

That's right.

but charities can never be enough whereas foreign aid is a far bigger contribution to overseas development.

No, you'd think that, as the numbers are so much higher. But actually, that's totally false.

Again, as Melesse says above, "no country in the world has achieved substantial development based on reliance on aid." None. Nada. Zip. It's never worked.

So you have to ask yourself, what's better: less money, but it actually gets to the poor, or more money, but it goes into the pockets of the leaders, the rich, and those who take bribes?

Can there be any doubt it's the first, not the second?

I understand western governments employ social anthropologists and economists to advise on ways and means.

Heh. I hate to disillusion you, but you really have to meet these jokers to believe what they're like.

Useless bureaucrats, most of them, concerned only with their own next promotion. They do not understand -- or want to understand -- the people. What they do instead is just impose Western value-systems on people and projects that are not actually in the local interest, and impress their betters in the government so that they can be promoted. Then they get shuffled to a new office in a new country, in which they are just as incompetent and problematic as they were in the last one.

In the developing world, governments do nothing well. Nothing. They are hives of corruption, graft, nepotism, tribalism and theft. And Foreign Aid comes in by way of the bureaucrats, whom the local authorities understand well and can milk for every cent. And you can see it if you see how much money has been flushed into the countries, and how wretched they've remained at the ground level in spite of all that. The money is not getting to the people.

All you have to do to know that's true is go and look.

I have met social anthropologists one of who was a government advisor and they were one and all people of integrity. It is all on record. Generally and where foreign aid is concerned a left wing government will be more partial to academia and less partial to their own personal prosperity.

I have.More to the point have social anthropologists been to look. Not all African politicians are bad men as you well know! Now Apartheid is gone the main cause of sub-Saharan African underdevelopment is exploitation by multinationals.

BTW regarding 'corruption', there is a difference of degree and intention between African sweeteners on the one hand and corrupt bribes and theft on the other.You probably know that too.

[Immanuel Can]

I have met social anthropologists one of who was a government advisor and they were one and all people of integrity.

"Integrity"? Lucky you.

Most of them are not very smart and often not at all knowledgeable or competent in the fields in which they have been placed...particularly those allocated to Africa, who seem much more concerned with hovering around the embassy than they do meeting beneficiaries in the field.

You are very blessed.

Generally and where foreign aid is concerned a left wing government will be more partial to academia and less partial to their own personal prosperity.

Your evidence for this preposterous claim, dear lady?

Not all African politicians are bad men as you well know!

Perhaps. But you can find a dozen or more tinpot dictators in Africa for every well-intended but impotent national leader. Just go down the list, and you'll see: all the "big men" in Africa have been very bad men.

Now Apartheid is gone the main cause of sub-Saharan African underdevelopment is exploitation by multinationals.

That's one problem. But it's far from the biggest or the deepest one.

The biggest problem is tribalism. It's really the plague of Africa, and the main reason for all the nepotism, corruption and decay. There's no chance of Africa modernizing in a healthy way so long as the dominant paradigm in a region is one of ancient tribal hierarchies, beliefs and antipathies.

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

The biggest problem is tribalism. It's really the plague of Africa, and the main reason for all the nepotism, corruption and decay. There's no chance of Africa modernizing in a healthy way so long as the dominant paradigm in a region is one of ancient tribal hierarchies, beliefs and antipathies.

Of course what Africa needs is a healthy dose of progressives and conservatives getting along nicely.

[henry quirk]

age,

So, do you also agree that; A 'man' does NOT own NOR possess freedom?

A man is free becuz he belongs to himself.


So, to you, do you have the 'right' to kill "another" human being or not, if and when they deprive you of your property?

I'll defend what's mine (my life, my liberty, my property); I'll defend what's yours (your life, your liberty, your property) unless you tell me to bug off. If, in that defense, the thief takes a permanent dirt nap, well, that's his call. He's the aggressor. He determines how far I go. If he walks away empty-handed: great! If he persists in tryin' to takin' what's mine or yours: the consequence is his.


So, which dictionary did you use to look up forfeit?

The one you provided.

Ah, so you lied when you said you looked up forfeit...

You still misuse forfeit.

How can I be using 'forfeit' wrong?

Consult a dictionary: you'll see the error.

Done this. There is NO error. End of story.

...becuz, at that time, I'd provided no dictionary.