4 ms·

> I generally agree with Musk's politics Children are dying in Africa as a direct result of his actions right now. https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda

• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• fallingknife 1y ago
  Where are all the other concerned countries stepping in to help since the US has left? Why is the US the only country that is considered responsible for the problems of foreign countries while every other country is given the luxury of focusing only on their domestic affairs?
  • jenadine 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_agencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_agenci... US is clearly not the only country. I guess other aid agencies are already busy with their existing programs and can't easily step in when the country with the biggest GDP stop suddenly. Edit: See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_sovereign_state_donors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_sovere...
  • watwut 1y ago
    US was giving less percentage of their GDP on foreign aid the other western countries. Americans consistently overestimate how much is USA helping others.
    • mlrtime 1y ago
      The US cannot possibly ever win the hearts and minds of the entire population. It is a classic example of "damned if you do and damned if you don't"
      • jsnider3 1y ago
        The US was easily winning the hearts of minds of most people before Trump randomly decided to shoot America in the foot.
        • mlrtime 1y ago
          No, we've been hated since Vietnam. There was a brief period after 9/11. From my prospective everyone hates America, but weirdly wants to migrate here at he same time. (Except for the online minority who threaten to leave but never do)
      • camel_Snake 1y ago
        The desired outcome isn't capturing hearts and minds, it's preventing easily preventable diseases and deaths for what amount to pennies in the federal budget.
        • mlrtime 1y ago
          Sounds like it should be part of the UN or WHO. Not for the US to fund through political appointees to gain favors.
  • davidw 1y ago
    If that's what you want to happen, you say "in a year, we're going to cut off this aid" so that there is time for someone else to step in. But they just cut it off from one day to the next in a place with challenging logistics, ensuring that some of the world's poorest people are likely to die so the world's wealthiest man can muck around in politics as a hobby.
• somenameforme 1y ago
  Your link does not say that. It says that there have been models predicting an increase in deaths over the next 'x' years while giving stories of numerous people who are facing bureaucratic hurdles moving over to the alternative clinics. The death projections assume there will be no replacement for USAID which is not a reasonable assumption. As the article emphasizes, they are already being replaced - though it's taking some time to get over the hurdles and get the bureaucracy working more effectively. But this is part of the reason I am quite happy with USAID being ended. The goal of effective charity should be to make itself obsolete. We can see both that that was entirely possible here, but also in no meaningful way pursued at all. They could have spent those years and millions of dollars funding the infrastructure and other pipelines necessary make sure people were aware of and could easily access these state (or other private charity) clinics. Instead they just acted as a dependency creating drug distributor. In one case having a guy literally just handing out drugs, at his discretion, at a truck stop.
• nosefurhairdo 1y ago
  Why should we send $240 million to Zambia? Is it the United States taxpayers' responsibility to treat all of the developing world's problems? How much foreign aid is enough? The United States is approaching 37 trillion dollars of debt. There will be no aid to Zambia or any other country if we default on that debt.
  • bildung 1y ago
    > Why should we send $240 million to Zambia? Is it the United States taxpayers' responsibility to treat all of the developing world's problems? If you see someone drowning in the river, and you stand by and are a good swimmer, is it not your responsibility to help? > There will be no aid to Zambia or any other country if we default on that debt. US Foreign Aid was a trivial amount of money buying much soft power around the globe. China for comparison has almost double the foreign aid amount the US had, relative to GNI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_sovereign_state_donors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_sovere...
    • hsuduebc2 1y ago
      I’m struck by how some still seem unable to grasp the power of soft influence. Africa now has even fewer incentives to side with anyone but China. America’s strength has long rested on its deep alliances and its knack for creating prosperity abroad—but that advantage is eroding fast.
      • mlrtime 1y ago
        Are you struck at the possibility of a inner-city family on welfare, or poor rural areas thinking that the US should be spending fungible dollars on them and not someone half way across the world?
        • davidw 1y ago
          Is the current administration planning on increasing aid to those people? It seems like they actually plan on cutting it, so I don't think your argument has any weight.
• jongjong 1y ago
  No, they're dying because of a global financial system which systematically steals from them by corrupting their governments into making decisions which benefit large western corporations at their expense, while depriving them of resource royalties and opportunities to work for themselves. International trade agreements and political over-engineering of the global order are to blame.