No way, the difference between "them" and "us" is BMWs and $1000 iPhones. That is such a dismissive perspective designed to perpetuate the power imbalance that

No way, the difference between "them" and "us" is BMWs and $1000 iPhones. That is such a dismissive perspective designed to perpetuate the power imbalance that we take advantage of. Not only is it retroactive justification for it having being intentionally created and abused, it's also plain wrong. The difference isn't luxuries it's SURVIVAL ESSENTIALS. Like Healthcare (159th in the world), Life Expectancy (140th in the world), and Happiness (143rd in the world). As to your argument that stopping from sending the money is going to harm the poor farmers not the corrupt government/military, I could just as easily make the reverse argument: "If the majority of the money we send there goes only to the corrupt leadership, helping keep them in power and abusing their people, then A) Doesn't that prove that trickle-down economics don't work without regulation? Just sayin'. but more importantly B) Wouldn't STOPPING sending that money then WEAKEN that leadership, making them more susceptible to an uprising and takeover? But no, see if the people take over, you know it's not just that the money would be distributed from the leaders to the workers. They would actually start to expect rights, and prosperity growth. Which means rising prices. Which, historically, would have led to a Western-based invasion or coup (see: Republics, Banana) means the west would have to invade them and restore the status quo. "