What Does the US OWE the International Community?

Published on January 4, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

"Eat your liver, there are children starving in China".

That logic didn't work on my 8 year old mind 26 years ago, and it doesn't work on me now. As I grew older, the logic was applied to "family planning"; that somehow, the choice of a family in rural Oklahoma to not have any children would diminish the overpopulation problem in parts of the globe where it actually EXISTS.

Now, we're told how it's supposed to help. Apparently, we are supposed to work as hard as we can, and earn as high salaries as we can, yet live a Walden-esque existence, denying ourselves any material comforts as we apply all of our vast earnings to assist those who cannot or will not support theirselves or their families, often due to personal lifestyle choices (Call me a cynic, but I think even a Sudanese family has gotten the gist of how a child is made and CAN take responsibility for not bearing a family they have no intention of supporting). Yes, there are accidents of birth that place on in a disadvantaged area, and yes, they have my sympathy, but the neo-socialist concept (it's not even good Marxism; Marx would SHUDDER to have his name attached to the mindset that pervades modern American liberals) will not work to solve the problems over the long term. These people live in overpopulated portions of the world, and no matter how much aid we provide, will almost certainly NEVER be able to be self sufficient at the population levels they contain.

This is where the cruelest, harshest thing I have to say comes into play. In the animal kingdom, it is called "survival of the fittest", and, unfortunately, people would perish under this system. But if we continue to operate under the illusion that 300 million people can support a global population of 6 billion, we will simply add 300 million more broke people to our numbers. I don't like to conceive of the idea of a child dying in any part of the globe, and I hate to think of an elderly person lingering away because of a disease that could have been cured by simple antibiotics. To that end, I think that privately, we should contribute every penny we can to ensure the best quality of living we can for these individuals. BUT, it should be done privately for several reasons:

First, a large government such as the US is extremely inefficient in its handling of the funds it collects. This inefficiency has proven itself so consistently that the Fed should automatically be disqualified as the money gathering/handling agent for such funds.

Second, the US government is not set up to discriminate voluntary contributions from involuntary contributions (taxes), and, as I have said time and time again, forced compassion is no compassion. It is akin to a mugging to demand that taxes be raised for these purposes.

Thirdly, the recipient governments are often corrupt and always inefficient. Money spent towards charities to assist these individuals is applied disproportionately to bribes, tarrifs (where products are involved), and other government red tape that translates into more income to an already inefficient government.

Privately run organizations offer the best term for long term viability because they focus on solutions, they do not focus on bandaids. If I feed your entire village for a year, then the money runs out, all you have done is stave off death for another year, which is in itself the ultimate cruelty because it is the presentation of a false hope that cannot sustain itself. If, however, I bring a manufacturing facility to your village and bring about economic vitality to the area, I have given you both a hope and a future. In the short term, however, people will perish because of the overpopulation, it is a simple fact of life. While it does not make their deaths any less tragic, it does make the overall outlook for the community brighter because they now have a future that does not require dependence.

In conclusion, and in return to topic, I feel that the US owes the international community as much assistance as it can lend in assisting free enterprise within those countries. After all, a responsible capitalist recognizes that the best way to make money is to create a strong economy where people can AFFORD to buy your product, and the US as a free enterprise economy needs to be involved in doing that. But at the same time we need to be responsible stewards of our own economy, and not ignore our internal responsibilities. Otherwise, if the US ends up broke, who will then look out for the little guy? I can assure you that if the US went bankrupt tomorrow, I would survive. In my little corner of Texas, I could sustain myself should the need arise. I can assure you, however, that if that happened, many third world countries who depend on us for aid would have larger numbers that would NOT survive. Even a hair brained economist can figure that one out.

So, instead of worrying about whether the liver gets eaten or not, let's worry about practical solutions we CAN implement with minimal waste (read: NOT the US Government).

Comments

cactoblasta

on Jan 04, 2005

That's why I think microcredit is the best form of aid. It's cheap, it's effective, and I've yet to hear of an example where it's failed dismally. Give the people on the person-to-person level a little financial assistance in setting up their own companies and they'll do all the hard work for you.

ShanghaiMark

on Jan 04, 2005

If the world works like you suggest it should then the bleeding heart liberals would scream about crimes against humanity. Look at how often China gets blasted for human rights violations. They have been constantly critized about the one-child policy, or about how they treat criminals, so forth and so on.

One thing you notice if you come to many of these countries is that the average joe works very hard to try and feed his family. The problem isn't micro as you make it sound. It isn't the average joe that can't control his willy. There are some cases of that, but by and large the problem has more to do with macro issues. For instance because there are so many people in china no average person can get ahead. This is compounded by a lack of labor laws. For instance most factory workers work 7 days a week, and many for over 10 hours a day. This is obviously not lazy people. When given the chance they work harder than anyone in the western countries. Just creating some basic labor laws would greatly improve the situation. Implementing a 40 hour work week would help push many of these people into the middle class instead of barely surviving.

What really would help is policy experts to show how some minor changes that don't change the customs of the society can drastically improve standards of living.

Anyway for now the bleeding hearts go on pushing everyone to give every penny we have so that others don't have to change some policies. Like most western thought everyone prefers to treat the symtom than to find a cure. If you don't think so look in your or your parents medicine drawer.

Eric

on Jan 05, 2005

Holy smokes! Ebeneezer Scrooge survived Christmas afterall! What a load of selfish nonsense and a lack of understanding of the way the world works.

Microcredits work here (savigs accounts, affordable car loans, debit cards, etc. etc. etc.) and help us become a part of the economy. Of course it's abused. But the bottom line is, people cannot afford to get money to start businesses. For example in India the system is so corrupt you can't get a loan without bribing the loan officer. People in the third world work harder than we in the West do, we just happen to be more productive with out time because of the way things work here.

For many people, lots of children is the only way to create their own personal "social security." Many children will die, so they have to have enough so that when they're too old to work there will be someone left to take care of them. When people are given a chance to feel secure, birthrates automatically go down.

And about those bonus ratings. We need another button: "Get a clue."

cactoblasta

on Jan 05, 2005

As an anonymous poster, you're bonus ratings are entirely meaningless, but you are right about the birthrates. It's only when a)survival rates for infants are reasonably high and b)when there is ready access to contraception aside from abstention that you see birth rates going down.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 05, 2005

And about those bonus ratings. We need another button: "Get a clue."

Eric,

Thank you for your input. I submit that it is perhaps you yourself who needs to get a clue. I have written a couple of very recent blogs that you might want to peruse about viewing an article in context. You seem to have little grasp of the overall gist of the article and I can see it would be fruitless trying to defend myself by explaining further . Feel free to look over my archives; you will find all the defense for my position that you need contained within them.

Shanghai, excellent comments and excellent points. In the cases where the workers are working the 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, however, there aren't as many starving as among the rest of the population (although I agree labor reforms are BADLY needed and long overdue, your use of China as an example underscores the very reason that a socialist system, on that scale at least, might not be the best solution for China's ills). If you have the time, I would encourage you to consider setting up your own blog site. I would be very interested in seeing more of what you have to say on these issues.

The simple facts are this, though: What's been done isn't working. We need new ideas to implement practical solutions for these countries, and these ideas aren't likely to come from the pseudosocialist aid programs that have been presented over the years, but from a long term, consistent and creative response from the international community. Cacto, your points on the issue are also very well taken, and should be considered when implementing a long term strategy for these areas.

David St. Hubbins

on Jan 05, 2005

Are you guys havng an 'UGLIEST AMERICAN' contest or something? Man, I feel sick to my stomach reading the Tsunami inspired articles and comments from the American hyperjingoistic subhumans here at JoeUser. You guys can't see it so I'll tell you: you're acting like a bunch of children and have somehow made an ugly tragedy even more ugly by wrapping it in an American flag. It's not all about you, and it's not the time for UN/Europe/Anything non-American bashing or patting yourself on the back for helping the 'Muslims you are at war with'. Funny, I had no idea the Racial Holy War was on, but I digress.

Gideon, your 'Bonus Cheque' article exposes you as having not the slightest clue about basic human decency. Kuperman, MessyBuu, Draginol, BakerStreet, TwerpFan, et al, same goes for you. You guys haven't the foggiest idea of what constitutes right and wrong; I feel sorry for you and anyone who has to deal with you. I'm not sure which of the above is the winner of the Ugliest American award; picking one of you is like crawing through a sewer looking for the largest, smelliest turd. It would be nice if once - just once - a decent American pointed out that you idiots make all Americans look bad.

Notwithstanding the vile cretins here I've found that blogging at JoeUser has been doubly rewarding experience. The VitriolBots are aways on the wrong side of every issue (Pro-Tsunami death, pro-pollution, pro-war, pro-trans-fat, pro-deficit, pro-hate, etc.), so that makes it easy to disprove everything they stand for. And since they are so nasty it is fun to watch them have a conniption when they are inevitably proven wrong. However, the daily deluge of diabolical drivel makes me ill, and lately it's been worse. The disgusting Tsunami "articles" make me wonder what I'm doing here arguing with lesser evolved lifeforms. So congratulations, your vomit inducing aticles have managed to do what admins, personal attacks, and The Sisterhood never could: you've convinced me my time is better spent elsewhere.

David St. Hubbins

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 05, 2005

David,

I'm responding because you obviously haven't read ALL that I've written on the subject. I'm a little dismayed at you in this area; I thought we had reached a detente here. You can't take one sentence and extrapolate it from everything else I've written on the subject; it's not a reasonable analysis. I can't take the time to categorically defend my statements everytime some new user pops up with the same critiques that have already been repeated AND defended ad nauseum.

Anyway, I know you aren't gonna be able to stay away. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

messybuu

on Jan 05, 2005

Some of the responses are interesting. I just don't see how this article is selfish and inhumane. Preferring private charities to government aid because it's more efficient? Wanting to make other countries self-sufficient as opposed to entirely dependent on us? Not eating liver? How are these things so evil?

stubbyfinger

on Jan 06, 2005

I think even as inefficient the Government is they can do things that private charities just can’t. Private relief organizations will never have the ability to mobilize on the scale needed for disasters. I think it would be more wasteful not to make use of governments capabilities for disaster relief. We really don’t have a choice. Charities can’t hire and maintain peacekeeping and rescue forces, or purchase and maintain their own air and ground transports, or address all the diplomatic concerns. Were always going to need both.

tim

on Jan 07, 2005

Only a few points out of a possibly endless list:
1. What does Marx have to do with what you call "american liberals"? Honestly, have you ever heard a democrat talk about marxism?
2. what makes you think 300 million people are supporting the world. It's more like 6 billion are supporting 300 million.
3. Where, in developing countries, have american "manufacturing plants" created economic vitality for communities?
4. When has the US ever looked out for what you call the "little guy"? who is "the little guy"?
5. the US is going broke because of its international involvement - in war, not aid. look at the numbers!
6. Should the US go broke, of course you would survive (along with most other people). What does that have to do with anything?

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 07, 2005

Tim,

1. If you look at the agenda of the Democratic Party, it is increasingly similar to the agenda of the Socialist Party of the 1930's. The Socialist Party was Marxist in nature, just FYI. They don't name Marx by name because the spectre of McCarthyism still haunts this country.

2. We have been instrumental in providing foreign aid to virtually every country on the globe. Their purchase of our products is voluntary, and not one has signed a noncompetitive agreement, meaning they are free to purchase from other countries that can provide the same goods and services.

3. Are you kidding? Where were you when the liberals were demanding Coca Cola pull out of South Africa during the apartheid era? It was clear then as now that their manufacturing plants were key to the South African economy. It is also prudent here to mention that American wages in countries such as Honduras and Indonesia, while low compared to the American wage scale, are gratuitous enough as to be considered a good job by those who live and work in those areas. Add to the list the number of telemarketers employed in India, and numerous businesses that I DON'T know about, and the American businesses have provided MUCH opportunity for other countries (which is why so many complain about the export of jobs...)

4. We have responded to virtually every international crisis in my lifetime and before with aid and money. While it has been to protect our own self interests as well, it has increased the quality of life worldwide.

5. Actually, both. I am not going to spend a lot of time on this point because my feelings can be found through a careful perusal of my archives, and do not bear repetition here.

6. One point out of a larger piece. Look at the piece as a whole and you should get it.

paxx

on Jan 10, 2005

First, none of the two main parties in the US are leftist. They are both very much to the right; one is just a little more so than the other.
Second, the problem in Third World countries in a bit more complex. There is the issue of over-population, yes. There is also the issue of their economies revolving around the primary sector (no transformation, just the harvest of the primary products). There is also the issue of education (or the lack of). And finally there is the issue of corrupt governments.
About over-population. It's kind of tied with the rural economy (often around 90% of the economy in most of these countries) and to education... And the choice to stop having children is not as easy as you mention it. For one, most of these countries are very patriarchal and women have little but no choice in any decision, including the one to have children or not. Men want to have children to help out in the field. As far as contraception goes, well lets just say that I've been in Africa and I've seen the "pill" sold individually on the marketplace. Women think that they just have to take it before the act and that it should work. Of course, it doesn't. That's where education is important.
About the economy. Lets just say that while coffee is harvested in Third World countries, cars are built in the Western hemisphere. And the prices of the raw coffee are decided in the Western hemisphere. Therefore, the price of cars have dramatically increased in the last 30 years, while the price of raw coffee has pretty much stayed the same. If an African farmer needed to sell 10,000 bags of coffee (arbitrary number) 30 years ago in order to buy a tractor to help him harvest his crops, he now needs to sell over 20 times as much coffee for the same kind of tractor (lets arbitrarely say 200,000 bags). Therefore, the Third World isn't getting any better, it's getting worse and more in debt every year. There is no hope of ever getting better as long as 1: they don't have control over their own prices and 2: they don't move into producing goods themselves instead of just havesting the primary goods and selling it for nothing to Western companies.
About education... Well, I don't think I need to say anything here. With a better education, not only could they understand how a child is conceived and how contraception works, but they could hope to have a better job than the slave work they do in the field from sunrise to sundown 7 days a week. And they could understand that democracy is an option for a governement, which was my last point.

But where can we help? There are actually two different issues when we talk about helping the Third World countries overall and helping these coutries in times of emergency such as now in the Indian Ocean area. Emergency funds need to be made quick and need to be made in money. They need to rebuild what was lost, and they need to help cure the wounded. Money is what they need, and lots of it. Private organisations, and public administrations all need to give in times such as this. This is no moment to think "Why should I give if he doesn't?" I think all the Western countries and their people are giving very generously right now and I'm proud of all our efforts right now.
But in "normal" times, ie: not in emergency situation, what these countries need is not money. It's help providing the basic education to all the people and the advanced education to the interested. It's help building a new economy, start new local companies that can process the primary goods they are providing, start service-oriented (terciary sector) companies. Many asian countries have actually taken advantage of the new techonologies to develop efficient competencies in the Tech business and a new better economy is emerging in many of these countries (India, Pakistan) as a result. Many UN organisations are working (and have been for some time) in these aspects. But funds are always needed, and that's where the governements help, but where anybody can help. You can give to UNESCO to help them in the achievement of these projects.

After all, we all live on the same planet, and we should all be helping out for each other.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!