4 ms·

To be fair no. Working for a charity isn't really going to help either (I refere you to the last 50 years where outside of disaster relief charity has done litt

To be fair no. Working for a charity isn't really going to help either (I refere you to the last 50 years where outside of disaster relief charity has done little to remove people from poverty). If you really want to help, buy the things they make and lobby YOUR government to lower trade barriers.

Tichy 18y ago
I am not even convinced "buy the things they make" is the right way to go. Maybe they should just make other things? Buying things "they" make would be the same thing as subsidization, which I consider mostly evil. It would lead to even more investment into making things nobody really wants, rather than investment into making useful things. Trade barriers are probably a good point, though.
- dazzawazza 18y ago
  If you lower the trade barriers you will get a chance to buy the things they make and they will get a chance to make what we want. The reality of africa is that Europe dumps a lot of it's produce into African markets at below market prices reducing the value of the local goods. There is no point in giving to charity until this stops. African countries don't want charity, they want markets and foreign capital so they can grow jobs for THEIR people.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    Maybe you are right, on the other hand "dumping produce below market price" could also be considered a gift. Is this a deliberate scheme by European countries to destroy the African economy, or why are they dumping the goods? Or maybe their production methods are just more efficient and therefore the goods are so cheap?
    - shawndrost 18y ago
      "Dumping produce below market price" is the other side of the "farm subsidies" coin. See "Your Farm Subsidies Are Strangling Us", by the presidents of two African nations: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04EFD8103DF932A25754C0A9659C8B63 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04EFD8103DF...
      - Tichy 18y ago
        Sure, but why do they have to rely on cotton? I just question the assumption that all Africans should be farmers. In fact, is it likely that they will reach our standards of living if they all remain farmers? I don't think so - very few people in developed countries seem to be farmers, for all I can tell. Of course if cotton can be produced cheaper there, it is a shame that the world doesn't make use of it. But other than that, I don't see why a nation should stubbornly insist on one kind of production.
rw 18y ago
"lower trade barriers"? When market isolation is one of the key ways the U.S. has become so highly productive?
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  Source? I have heard of only informal studies on the percentage of economic growth over the last 200 years that was caused by charitable or governmental redistribution versus skills, technology, and reinvestment. And the number is usually less than 1%. But apparently someone has studied this more rigorously, and gotten a more confident estimate. Let's hear it!
  - rw 18y ago
    Briefly -- I'm talking about protective tariffs and IP laws.

Tichy 18y ago

I am not even convinced "buy the things they make" is the right way to go. Maybe they should just make other things? Buying things "they" make would be the same thing as subsidization, which I consider mostly evil. It would lead to even more investment into making things nobody really wants, rather than investment into making useful things. Trade barriers are probably a good point, though.

dazzawazza 18y ago
If you lower the trade barriers you will get a chance to buy the things they make and they will get a chance to make what we want. The reality of africa is that Europe dumps a lot of it's produce into African markets at below market prices reducing the value of the local goods. There is no point in giving to charity until this stops. African countries don't want charity, they want markets and foreign capital so they can grow jobs for THEIR people.
- Tichy 18y ago
  Maybe you are right, on the other hand "dumping produce below market price" could also be considered a gift. Is this a deliberate scheme by European countries to destroy the African economy, or why are they dumping the goods? Or maybe their production methods are just more efficient and therefore the goods are so cheap?
  - shawndrost 18y ago
    "Dumping produce below market price" is the other side of the "farm subsidies" coin. See "Your Farm Subsidies Are Strangling Us", by the presidents of two African nations: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04EFD8103DF932A25754C0A9659C8B63 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04EFD8103DF...
    - Tichy 18y ago
      Sure, but why do they have to rely on cotton? I just question the assumption that all Africans should be farmers. In fact, is it likely that they will reach our standards of living if they all remain farmers? I don't think so - very few people in developed countries seem to be farmers, for all I can tell. Of course if cotton can be produced cheaper there, it is a shame that the world doesn't make use of it. But other than that, I don't see why a nation should stubbornly insist on one kind of production.

rw 18y ago

"lower trade barriers"? When market isolation is one of the key ways the U.S. has become so highly productive?

byrneseyeview 18y ago
Source? I have heard of only informal studies on the percentage of economic growth over the last 200 years that was caused by charitable or governmental redistribution versus skills, technology, and reinvestment. And the number is usually less than 1%. But apparently someone has studied this more rigorously, and gotten a more confident estimate. Let's hear it!
- rw 18y ago
  Briefly -- I'm talking about protective tariffs and IP laws.